So the All-Star game happened, I think, and now it is time for the second half of the season to start up. The TV results are in from the "Midsummer Classic" and the results do not look so good. This year's All Star game was the worst rated All-Star game in history. Now this could be slightly misleading, since I am fairly certain the first one was not broadcast on TV, thereby getting a 0 rating. Be that as it may, it certainly was not well watched. My question is, why is this so?
I have my theories on the subject. This year's AL All-Star team eventually included 42 players. 42!! There are 14 teams in the AL with 25 players on each team. Let's cut that down to the 9 regulars in the lineup plus maybe 4 pitchers per team with a legit shot at being an All-Star (2 starters, a setup, a closer). This means there are now realistically 182 players with a shot at being an All-Star, and 42 of the made the team. That is 23% of the league wide players that we see on a regular basis.
The NL is not much better. 39 players eventually were included on the roster. For the NL, there are 16 teams, however, we offset that by the fact that there is no DH. So really, we have only 12 players per team that I would say have a legit shot at being an All-Star. This is 192 players, and 39 made the team for a staggering 20%. Is this just becoming a participation award?
Let's say for a minute that you are a Cleveland Indians fan. You have one player on the All-Star team this year, and his name is Fausto Carmona. He is a pitcher. The roster includes 18 pitchers, for a 9 inning game. Stay Tuned Cleveland... you may see your All-Star throw a pitch, after this commercial break!! Oh how exciting. How do you expect for those fans to really tune in, unless there is really nothing else on TV. Same with Pittsburgh, the Nationals, Orioles, any team that will be very lightly represented. That is a tough sell for all but maybe 6-8 teams who have several representatives.
Now, let's say you are one of those fans of a team with multiple representatives. This probably means that your team is competitive this year, and you would love to see your league win, so your team has homefield in the WFC. Commissioner Selig would lead you to believe that this is the most important thing in the WFC. Well, after last season, the home team is 4-3 in the WFC since the All-Star rule came into being. I am not saying that home field means nothing, but the evidence is not exactly overwhelming. Also, if you have multiple players in this game, you are probably just holding your breath the whole time, hoping that none of them gets hurt. I was pretty happy when they pulled Doc, and when Howard was lifted. I was just glad to see Howard as the DH. No chance he will collide with anyone in the field when he doesn't go on the field other than to strikeout. This is good news.
But is that all? People are not watching because the game is watered down? Well, I think there is more to it than that. This year's game was a bit of a sleeper. In the first several innings, it appeared that the sun prevented any hitter from seeing the ball, and when the starters are chucking the ball at 100mph, seeing the ball is important. The greatest hitter in baseball history got a hit basically 3 in every 8 times to the plate. That still means that even an average pitcher was going to win those other 5 times. Put the sun right in the batter's eyes and put well above average pitching on the mound, and the advantage is hugely in the pitcher's side. I have the utmost respect for talented pitching, and I can enjoy a good 1-0 game (especially when Doc is throwing a perfect game in a 1-0 game), but most fans are not into that. The 1990's ESPN commercial was right, chicks dig the long ball, and there were none of those after the derby. Not exactly a made for TV drama.
Also a factor, the pregame show. Erin and I watched a movie that night, and it ended around 835 PM. I recalled the All-Star game was set to begin at 8PM, so I flipped on Fox to see how it was going. Wrong. They were preparing the first pitch. Isn't that what a pregame show is for? So that when game time comes along, the game starts. Instead, the game started at 845PM. You are losing a large amount of your east coast audience as the night wears on, and many of your more represented teams (NYY, NYM, BOS, PHI, CIN, TB, ATL, etc) are going to fall in that category. Just like the WFC, you are losing some of the general audience when these game start too late for the east coast. Let's try starting the game at 8PM in the future, and not spending an hour doing pregame shit that no one really cares much about.
Lastly, maybe the general public is speaking up about the voices on the air. The portions of the game I watched were definitely less enjoyable listening to Joe Buck and Tim McCarver. I just cannot stand those fools. It seems like I am not the only one. Would it make me not watch something as a result? Well, I did listen to a lot of the playoff games in the past on the radio, and have the TV on just for visuals. So, yeah, I would say that it makes me think about whether I really want to watch something if I know Buck is doing it. What I want to know is, are there pro-Buck people out there? Many people complain about him, but he still calls many games. Do some people like him?
Anyway, just my thoughts on the ASG. Not exactly the most exciting night in sports. Of course it beats Chris Berman saying "back" 1,000 times the night before during the home run derby, and it also beats the ESPY's the night afterward. But the competition is not exactly too tough in that crowd.
Showing posts with label ESPN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ESPN. Show all posts
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
ESPN, the Inquirer, and why my Dad is right
It has come to my attention recently, mostly just from reading my own posts here on this blog, that I have a lot of beefs with random things. I like to laugh about Erin's grandparents, and how they got so upset when people parked across from their driveway, even though neither of them had driven in several years. I laugh about my Grandfather, and how he apparently spent some time in the summer sitting in a lawn chair, by a stop sign, blowing his referee whistle at cars that did not properly stop. Old people have a lot of vendettas against random things. So do I. Maybe I laugh at them because I easily see why that upsets them, and it is a plight that everyone has experienced. It is a pain when people park near your driveway making it difficult for you to pull out, or even your friends if you don't drive. Sometimes I do wish I had a whistle in my car, so I could blow it at people who disobey basic traffic laws. In the Philly area, you would be out of breath every time you went for a drive.
This brings me to my point. A few months back, I thought that I was seeing my dad's first telltale sign of reaching that age, when complaining about things is just a part of daily life. I am not saying that my dad won't stand up for what he believes in, but I would say more often, my mom picks the consumer fights, and that is where the rest of us get it from. My dad however was growing increasingly unhappy with the writing in the sports section of the Philadelphia Inquirer. He felt that it was becoming mostly just opinion pieces, and that so many of the writers were becoming so negative. One of his favorites is when the writers attack Uncle Charlie. They love to harp on his lack of being able to do a double switch, small ball, etc. My dad thinks this is a crock. He is 56 years old, he has lived near the Philadelphia area his entire life. In those 56 years, the Phillies have made the playoffs exactly 9 times. 3 of those trips have happened in the last 3 years. In the 57 seasons he has been alive for, the team has finished with a winning record only 29 times. In this span their win percentage is 49.2%. During the Uncle Charlie era? 5 out of 5 winning seasons (6 if we count this year, but it is not over). Winning percentage? how about 55.0%. If you wanted to write in an era of complaining, you should have written for the Phils from 1918 to 1948. One winning season (78-76), a low water mark of a 27.8 Winning percent, and 6 seasons at 30% or less. That would be the era to hate on the Phils. It just seems as though these writers came here, knowing that the franchise is historically not good, and knew they could write angry stuff everyday. Well, not according to my dad.
So what did my dad do about this? He canceled his subscription to the Inquirer. This is probably a subscription that he has held for more than 25 years. I cannot remember a prolonged time in which we did not have the paper coming to the house. At first he was worried that he wouldn't not have his crossword puzzles to work on during the train rides, but he quickly learned that he could find other things to do. Here we are, now maybe 5 months into his cancellation, and I have never once heard him mention that he wants to go back. He just got tired of it. Realized that he wasn't enjoying reading it, so why bother? He even got a call from them one time, offering him a discount on the paper, or just the Sunday edition, which is bigger with more content. He asked if the same people wrote for them on the weekend. They said yes. He told them that didn't solve his problem then... so true!
So how does that relate to ESPN? Well, I have had this issue with ESPN in the past. I feel like they don't report on the day's best plays anymore. They report on so much crap. They have so many "analysts" on the shows, some of which are OK, most of which are terrible. I am not even sure who to put on the list of guys I despise who are on ESPN, but I think most people would know my least favorite (Merril Hoge), and he might need his own post sometime. That would have to be a day when I really want to get myself upset since I will need to read some of his stuff to cite examples. Ugh. Anyway, I would watch these shows like Baseball Tonight and Sportscenter, only to find myself frustrated that they won't show me the highlights, they just talk about everything instead. Gotta analyze why they think everything happens. Most of these guys are no more knowledgeable than I am. They always do this thing where they cite "sources". Who the fuck are these sources? The same sources who a month ago said the Big 12 was disbanding? The same sources who said Doc was coming to Philly last July? The same sources who know where LeBron is going? These sources are right as often as Merril Hoge's Championship predictions (ugh, back to him I go). For those not familiar with Hoge, this means they are terribly inaccurate.
A poster on Deadspin this morning did a good job of showing this yesterday. At one point in the afternoon, out of the 10 headlines on the main page, 4 of them read as follows:
"Source: Utley out 5-6 weeks for thumb surgery"
"Sources: Johnson likely staying with Hawks" (this one has a video too!!)
"Source: Stoudemire long shot to return to Suns" (Really?!?! There are 30 fucking teams in the league. If everyone had an equal share that is 1 in 30 chances he goes back there. Thanks for the newsflash asshole!!)
"Source: Chargers' Jackson Suspended" This one had a video and a link to a blog. I write a blog. My brother writes a blog. Is this your source.
Really? 40% of their stories cited "sources". How did they do with these stories? Well, later on news was released saying 8 weeks for Utley, that one is tough to grade. He did have surgery at least. Jackson was suspended, but not exactly going out on a limb. He did get a DUI for the second time. The middle 2? Well, who knows. But whether or not they come true, to me it doesn't matter. It is just some person writing an opinion that this person will or will not return to their team. Your guess is as good as mine is as good as theirs.
Even at the writing of this story, 2 of the 10 headlines begin with "Sources", while a 3rd starts with "Rumors". Oh but I can't read that one, you have to be an insider. Seriously. I would need to pay them to hear about those rumors. Unreal. Who is Buster Olney? Why is his opinion on these things worth anything? Not only that, but if this story becomes true, it will be a headline anyway. It will say something like this mornings article that says "Utley out 8 weeks with Thumb Injury". Whew, saved myself the Insider Fee.
Other articles currently posted on ESPN.com that would require me to pay to read them:
"Peter Keating: The truth about World Cup Shootouts" - This is a tournament that has been going on for 80 years. I think by now we have a good idea about how they work, but apparently this guys knows something we don't. Let me get my wallet.
"E.J. Hradek: Free Agency Day 1 winners and losers" - We know who won already? Really? Interesting. This asshole probably thought that the Phillies sending Larry Bowa and Ryne Sandberg to the Cubs for Ivonne DeJesus was a winner for the Phils at the time. How can we judge these deals before any of them play any games? Dumb.
"Joe Lunardi (also the bracketologist): Expect a Pac-10 surge after last year's low" - In other words, expect a conference who has routinely put out powerhouse teams, won championships, and dominated NCAA football for the last 10-15 years to have some success next year. So bold. Thanks for that Joe. I have one for you. Expect the Yankees to win another World Series this century. Dope.
So what am I doing about this? Well, I have stopped watching things on ESPN unless it is a specific sport, or a documentary. I will watch Sunday Night baseball, Monday Night Football, and 30 for 30. If I want baseball news, I will watch MLB Network, or I will go on yahoo sports and just read the story. They are a big part of my thoughts on why I still have cable. Half of the shows that come on my TV just bother me, so why have them? Why watch ESPN? Why go to their website? Maybe if I didn't have them, in 6 months, I wouldn't be looking back either, just like my dad and his paper.
I long for the days watching Sportscenter with my brother in the living room when we were little. I could not stand Charlie Steiner then because he just read the news. When it was him and Bob Ley, those were the worst. All news, no character. Kilborn and Olberman, now there was a team. Sadly, from there it went to Stuart Scott, and all these dumb promotions in the middle of SC, Peter Gammons leaving Baseball Tonight, and we are left with a bunch of highly opinionated, supposedly highly plugged in, ultimately blathering assholes. Well Done ESPN. Well done. I am ready for my 80s right now.
This brings me to my point. A few months back, I thought that I was seeing my dad's first telltale sign of reaching that age, when complaining about things is just a part of daily life. I am not saying that my dad won't stand up for what he believes in, but I would say more often, my mom picks the consumer fights, and that is where the rest of us get it from. My dad however was growing increasingly unhappy with the writing in the sports section of the Philadelphia Inquirer. He felt that it was becoming mostly just opinion pieces, and that so many of the writers were becoming so negative. One of his favorites is when the writers attack Uncle Charlie. They love to harp on his lack of being able to do a double switch, small ball, etc. My dad thinks this is a crock. He is 56 years old, he has lived near the Philadelphia area his entire life. In those 56 years, the Phillies have made the playoffs exactly 9 times. 3 of those trips have happened in the last 3 years. In the 57 seasons he has been alive for, the team has finished with a winning record only 29 times. In this span their win percentage is 49.2%. During the Uncle Charlie era? 5 out of 5 winning seasons (6 if we count this year, but it is not over). Winning percentage? how about 55.0%. If you wanted to write in an era of complaining, you should have written for the Phils from 1918 to 1948. One winning season (78-76), a low water mark of a 27.8 Winning percent, and 6 seasons at 30% or less. That would be the era to hate on the Phils. It just seems as though these writers came here, knowing that the franchise is historically not good, and knew they could write angry stuff everyday. Well, not according to my dad.
So what did my dad do about this? He canceled his subscription to the Inquirer. This is probably a subscription that he has held for more than 25 years. I cannot remember a prolonged time in which we did not have the paper coming to the house. At first he was worried that he wouldn't not have his crossword puzzles to work on during the train rides, but he quickly learned that he could find other things to do. Here we are, now maybe 5 months into his cancellation, and I have never once heard him mention that he wants to go back. He just got tired of it. Realized that he wasn't enjoying reading it, so why bother? He even got a call from them one time, offering him a discount on the paper, or just the Sunday edition, which is bigger with more content. He asked if the same people wrote for them on the weekend. They said yes. He told them that didn't solve his problem then... so true!
So how does that relate to ESPN? Well, I have had this issue with ESPN in the past. I feel like they don't report on the day's best plays anymore. They report on so much crap. They have so many "analysts" on the shows, some of which are OK, most of which are terrible. I am not even sure who to put on the list of guys I despise who are on ESPN, but I think most people would know my least favorite (Merril Hoge), and he might need his own post sometime. That would have to be a day when I really want to get myself upset since I will need to read some of his stuff to cite examples. Ugh. Anyway, I would watch these shows like Baseball Tonight and Sportscenter, only to find myself frustrated that they won't show me the highlights, they just talk about everything instead. Gotta analyze why they think everything happens. Most of these guys are no more knowledgeable than I am. They always do this thing where they cite "sources". Who the fuck are these sources? The same sources who a month ago said the Big 12 was disbanding? The same sources who said Doc was coming to Philly last July? The same sources who know where LeBron is going? These sources are right as often as Merril Hoge's Championship predictions (ugh, back to him I go). For those not familiar with Hoge, this means they are terribly inaccurate.
A poster on Deadspin this morning did a good job of showing this yesterday. At one point in the afternoon, out of the 10 headlines on the main page, 4 of them read as follows:
"Source: Utley out 5-6 weeks for thumb surgery"
"Sources: Johnson likely staying with Hawks" (this one has a video too!!)
"Source: Stoudemire long shot to return to Suns" (Really?!?! There are 30 fucking teams in the league. If everyone had an equal share that is 1 in 30 chances he goes back there. Thanks for the newsflash asshole!!)
"Source: Chargers' Jackson Suspended" This one had a video and a link to a blog. I write a blog. My brother writes a blog. Is this your source.
Really? 40% of their stories cited "sources". How did they do with these stories? Well, later on news was released saying 8 weeks for Utley, that one is tough to grade. He did have surgery at least. Jackson was suspended, but not exactly going out on a limb. He did get a DUI for the second time. The middle 2? Well, who knows. But whether or not they come true, to me it doesn't matter. It is just some person writing an opinion that this person will or will not return to their team. Your guess is as good as mine is as good as theirs.
Even at the writing of this story, 2 of the 10 headlines begin with "Sources", while a 3rd starts with "Rumors". Oh but I can't read that one, you have to be an insider. Seriously. I would need to pay them to hear about those rumors. Unreal. Who is Buster Olney? Why is his opinion on these things worth anything? Not only that, but if this story becomes true, it will be a headline anyway. It will say something like this mornings article that says "Utley out 8 weeks with Thumb Injury". Whew, saved myself the Insider Fee.
Other articles currently posted on ESPN.com that would require me to pay to read them:
"Peter Keating: The truth about World Cup Shootouts" - This is a tournament that has been going on for 80 years. I think by now we have a good idea about how they work, but apparently this guys knows something we don't. Let me get my wallet.
"E.J. Hradek: Free Agency Day 1 winners and losers" - We know who won already? Really? Interesting. This asshole probably thought that the Phillies sending Larry Bowa and Ryne Sandberg to the Cubs for Ivonne DeJesus was a winner for the Phils at the time. How can we judge these deals before any of them play any games? Dumb.
"Joe Lunardi (also the bracketologist): Expect a Pac-10 surge after last year's low" - In other words, expect a conference who has routinely put out powerhouse teams, won championships, and dominated NCAA football for the last 10-15 years to have some success next year. So bold. Thanks for that Joe. I have one for you. Expect the Yankees to win another World Series this century. Dope.
So what am I doing about this? Well, I have stopped watching things on ESPN unless it is a specific sport, or a documentary. I will watch Sunday Night baseball, Monday Night Football, and 30 for 30. If I want baseball news, I will watch MLB Network, or I will go on yahoo sports and just read the story. They are a big part of my thoughts on why I still have cable. Half of the shows that come on my TV just bother me, so why have them? Why watch ESPN? Why go to their website? Maybe if I didn't have them, in 6 months, I wouldn't be looking back either, just like my dad and his paper.
I long for the days watching Sportscenter with my brother in the living room when we were little. I could not stand Charlie Steiner then because he just read the news. When it was him and Bob Ley, those were the worst. All news, no character. Kilborn and Olberman, now there was a team. Sadly, from there it went to Stuart Scott, and all these dumb promotions in the middle of SC, Peter Gammons leaving Baseball Tonight, and we are left with a bunch of highly opinionated, supposedly highly plugged in, ultimately blathering assholes. Well Done ESPN. Well done. I am ready for my 80s right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
