WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Party like its 19 fucking 18!!!
Woodrow Wilson, I can hear his disembodied congratulatory speech right now! On the radio, of course.
Yes, I’m drinking. 
I will not miss McCarver’s trenchant commentaries.
Speaking of which, here’s a keen insight from a Doper back in 2001:
Damn, the magic boxer shorts worked. Who’d a’ thunk it?
I guess it’s just me then that found the 1918 thing horribly irritating. It’s a mildly interesting footnote and all, but the broadcast would not leave it alone. I can understand mentioning it, but actually asking people for their reaction to the 1918 thing is very very stupid. Seriously, who cares that the Red Sox hadn’t finished a World Series in Fenway Park in a while? They won TWO in the last ten years. The reason they didn’t finish in Fenway is because they won quickly! Sheeesh.
Didja know that no one in the ballpark last night was around the last time the Sox clinched the Series in Fenway? I mean, wow. It boggles the mind. :rolleyes:
It wasn’t just you. That whole thing was just silly.
That aside, congrats to the Red Sox and their fans. This past week at least, you looked like the better team. As a Cardinals fan, I’m glad to have made it to the World Series; I’m sorry the Cardinals didn’t make it more interesting; I’m glad it at least went better than in 2004; and I’m looking forward to next year.
Yeah, the postgame interviews were horrific. Tell us Shane how much better this WS win was than that crappy one you won in Philly. I mean some people died in an unrelated event, how can Philly compete with that?
Really, isn’t winning a world series exciting enough to talk about?
“How can Philly compete?”
There you go, fixed that for you (by cutting out all of the unnecessary stuff). 
Be kind. What *would *be a good example of a postgame interview question?
I was a journalism minor in college, so you’d think I’d be rushing in here to defend reporters, but…no can do.
In answer to the question ElvisL1ves asked - There is no good question to ask when you insert yourself into a throng of joyous, crazy, celebratory, just won the freaking World Series guys. The two “sideline” reporters tasked with this (Rosenthal and Andrews) were awkward, asked awkward questions, and just generally produced a few cringe-worthy moments.
FOX, more than any other network, does this all the time. ESPN does it too, but maybe I just don’t watch the mothership as much. FOX insists on inserting itself into the game. Interviewing managers between innings, putting mics on players, even putting mics inside the freaking bases. To me, none of it adds to the game, and at worst it’s a nuisance.
Save your questions for the post game interviews, no need to run onto the field and insert yourself in the moment.
Also [grouchy old man] why are they calling them sideline reporters? Ain’t no damn sidelines in baseball, bitches [/grouchy old man]
Reading that is almost as much fun as re-reading Shaughnessy’s column from last February
That was a different universe though, we’ve switched since then. Blame Dave Roberts.
Congrats to the winners. Now, perhaps, they’ll shave off the beards and act like professional athletes. But it’s Boston, so expecting class is a useless pursuit.
Ah yes, the in-game mananager or player interviews were terrible. They even missed actual game action at times. You know, the reason I’m freaking watching in the first place. I really feel like FOX’s baseball broadcasts are for non-baseball fans. They seem to think a majority of baseball viewers don’t actually care about baseball. It is infuriating.
Also, Red Sox WIN!!!
They missed the final out in game 4.
That’s a clearer way to put it. I concede that’s a reasonable way to read the plain English. In this interpretation, “very likely” means something like, “And you’ll find that most often in this circumstance, the runner would be called out because of the obstruction, therefore you’ll very likely need to make that call.” I don’t know if that’s statistically true or not, but it’s at least a reading that doesn’t simply ignore the “very likely” words. If that’s the intention, it’s shitty wording in the rule that could have easily been clearer, because my first reading of the plain English is equally logical. “This is usually, but not always, obstruction” without any further clarification of the “very likely” phrase leaves room for interpretation.
Again, though, I concede your read of it is probably what’s intended, and this made the point much clearer than the multiple “but there’s simply no room for judgment here, and you’re wrong” responses.
By the way, who won the Series?
Brad Ausmus named manager of the Tigers. Great choice - from everything I’ve read and seen from him (i.e. Managing from behind the plate), he’s a great choice. He’ll know how to use those arms extremely well.
It seems to be getting established that you can either manage or you can’t; coaching experience doesn’t really matter. Mike Matheny is an example, and maybe Ausmus will be another. Maybe that only applies to catchers, though.
That’s fantastic. I love Ausmus. From everything I have heard he is one of the really good guys in the game. He’s going to make a great manager.
I went ahead and started a hot stove thread over here.
Definitely rooting for Ausmus.