John Axford was part of the Blue Jays? Wasn’t he in studio doing analyzing? Can’t wait for the Jays to trade Buck Martinez to X team for future considerations next.
After he started doing the studio work for the Jays he ended up getting the call from Baseball Canada to pitch some of their Olympic qualifying games and by most accounts did really well. So the Jays signed him to a minor league deal to see if he could make the comeback all the way to MLB. That deal had a clause or understanding that though the Jays signed him, they wouldn't stand in the way of another MLB team came looking and offering him a path back to the bigs. Apparently the Brewers did that and so the Jays facilitated the move to Milwaukee for him for minimal compensation just so the deal could go through. And that's when he got hurt in his first outing like the tweet I posted mentioned.
Why do so many people hate Buck Martinez, would you prefer to go back to Jim Hughson and Fergie Olver back from the 80s.
There are several reasons. Though I don't think people "hate" Buck specifically/personally. Just dislike him as a significant broadcast voice for the team.
But the why comes down to
1) He seems increasingly disengaged with what's happening in the games. The long, tangential discussions while play is going on are a big part of this, as is the fact that he often seems to get fooled or confused by how plays unfold. Not just calling HRs on balls that die 20 feet before the wall, but he will lock himself into descriptions of how plays unfold that are simply patently untrue (calling guys out when they're safe, suggesting someone was/wasn't in a position to make a play when the opposite is true, even the basic physical elements of the play, such as him repeatedly discussing Vladdy's HR on Monday as if it was just barely fair when really it went over the wall closer to CF than to the LF foul pole. He's even hit the point where he will repeatedly misidentify players
on the Blue Jays) When your job as the play-by-play is to call the game, being able to call it accurately should be the highest priority.
Some of this feels like it's because he came up as a broadcaster and spent the bulk of his career as color commentator. He's been trained/bred for that role and as a play-by-play man he tends to lapse quite hard into color man tendencies when given the opportunity.
2) The repeated rants about things that stick in his craw. One-knee catcher stances, shifting, a lack of small ball, strikeouts, pitch counts, closer mythologizing... There's a long list of things that Buck is extremely passionate about to the extent that he will launch into diatribes about them at ANY given opportunity. And now after several years of that it's getting old hearing every single game about how awful it is that catchers catch on one knee now or how batters today are idiots because they don't just hit it away from the shift (the "it's just that easy!" implications always seem a bit disingenuous coming from a career .225 hitter). It's fine if he says his piece once or twice over a season when it's really important. But we're almost to the point where literally every single passed ball a catcher surrenders because of a one-knee catching stance launches Buck into the same rant with the same ferocity as if it was the very first time he was seeing it happen.
3) The anti-stats bent. I get it. advanced stats and fancier analytics are not for everyone. He doesn't have to use them in the broadcast to any significant degree if he doesn't wish to. That's fine. But where it becomes troublesome is that even if he dislikes using the stats, he should not be arguing so vociferously against them or mocking/putting down their value to the audience that either a)likes those things or b) hasn't learned about them yet but should probably not be biased against them by someone who shows their complete lack of understanding every time they open their mouth on the subject. The fact that he can scoff at WAR or OPS or whatnot then turns around and talks about how valuable pitcher wins or RBIs are as a measure and predictor of judging player skill/performance is a huge strike against him. As it is when he brushes off statistical arguments with appeals to vague junk like intangibles or "the will to win" in a way that pretty much boils down to "these things let me paint the narrative however I want, so they're great!"