Bio not provided
We have Hawk Harrelson and Steve Stone. What's not to like? They support the team they work for, call a good & fair game, get on the team when it's performing badly and call out the shockingly bad state of MLB umpires. They both provide proper insight, don't talk just to hear themselves blather, have good stories; most teams would pay good money to get a pair like that in the booth. Harrelson's major flaw is being behind the times in sabermetrics, but since most announcers are still in the stone age on that it's hardly a notable flaw at this point.
6 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @ http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/rate-the-local-mlb-announcers-al-central.html
@Faireunoeuf Ah, so you never read 538 during the election. Yes, you've admitted as much. Otherwise you're simply lying and attempting to ignore all the clear-headed analysis that Silver and the others at 538 provided for the polling data.
7 months ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117068/nate-silvers-fivethirtyeight-emptiness-data-journalism
@alansafe @Mencken21 Got it, you're in favor of the jabbering every second and making yourself the story. The Gus Johnson method.
1 year ago on Tom Hamilton vs Hawk Harrelson, Volume 3
@alansafe @Mencken21 So Vin Scully wasn't doing his job in not jabbering every second after calling Sandy Koufax's perfect game? Not the delicious, listening to the crowd noise choice he makes here.
@ClarenceOveur1 @awfulannouncing Anyone would cry being the announcer for this awful Sox team.