Harold Reynolds The Apologist
 

Is there a bigger "Jock-Sniffer" in broadcasting than Harold Reynolds(I know he used 2 play). After treading Harold's latest column I personally think he needs to have his lips surgically removed from Ken Griffey's backside. If there is a bigger player apologist out there right now I don't know who it is.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/spring2003/co...d/1530871.html

... on the assumption that the topic here is a discussion of which sports commentators have the most, um, sycophantic tendencies, I've moved the thread to Seventh Inning Stretch.

To answer the question: I guess it's not that surprising to see a former player defending Griffey, since he's a favored target of so many other columnists. He takes a generous helping of criticism. On the other hand, he has been somewhat stinky and fragile, and he is a popular target both because expectations are so high, and because he takes criticism particularly gracelessly.

As for Reynolds himself, I have always kind of liked his commentary on Baseball Tonight; he's relatively astute in that context. He shouldn't write any of it down though.

Weren't they teammates for a while too? Hard to accept his opinion since its inherintly biased.

But is he going to reach Ahmad Rashad proportions in this department?

Don't get it - -



What was so brown-nosey about this?

Reynolds comes no where close to the glad-handing doofuses that pretend to do color on some local broadcasts.

yeah, but I expect that from local broadcasters.

Last season I started coming up with the rules on the Harold Reynolds Drinking Game:

- Drink once if he refers to a .260 hitter with minimal power, no position and bad platoon splits as a "professional hitter."

-Drink once if he finds a reason to commend a light-hitting veteran wildly for making a routine play.

-Drink once if he talks about how important it is for a guy with no plate discipline to "be aggressive up there."

You get the idea. I enjoyed watching Mr. Reynolds play, but I find his analysis somewhat lacking.

I got drunk just reading this!

:drool:

I really don't think that's possible.

I know Reynolds can be soft, but I like him.

I agree with Craig S. - on both Reynolds and Rashad. Rashad is just plain unwatchable.

I don't think Reynolds is any softer than the other players they have ran through there. It's usually the former and future managers who are willing to criticize.

I wonder if criticism from sources like that is really a form of auditioning for a job from an owner who doesn't like what he sees on the field. Rip the guy loud enough and long enough and you just might get him fired, and hey, there's an opening all of a sudden. And who better to replace him than the keen-eyed analyst with managerial experience who spotted all those flaws in the first place?

Then again, maybe I'm just a cynic.

No way he reaches the Rashad Zone. Rashad has set a record that will never be broken.

who is ahmad rashad? is he a local broadcaster? tv or radio? i've never seen him, heard him, or read anything by him. or did he do network before 1990?

i don't think what he said about griffey was "jock sniffing". (i like the term, though. us females generally don't think much about that particular item of apparel.) he is sensitive to criticism, and i don't blame him for getting upset for being ripped because he couldn't perform because of injuries.

and harold is overly fond of "intangibles" no doubt about it. but he isn't THAT bad.