I Hate Boston Sports Teams- Sun Continues to Rise in East, Set in West
Remember when Jacoby Ellsbury stole home? I sure do. I'll bet you do too. And if I didn't know any better, I'd have thought from the media's reaction at the time that it was the greatest accomplishment in the history of athletics. Sportswriters gushed and blushed. Some asshole MSM-types (this guy is a blogger, but he's a blogger officially employed by NBC sports, so I'm lumping him in with the MSM) even went so far as to complain that the ESPN crew covering the game detracted from the moment by not calling it as you're "supposed" to call a steal of home, however that is. I wish I were making that up, but that's really what the dude said. ESPN, probably in penance for this alleged sin committed against "Red Sox Nation" and humanity as a whole, stopped all coverage of any other events to show a non-stop looped replay of the steal for 24 hours straight the day after. A Red Sock had stolen home- against the Yankees no less!- and the world would never be the same. We were all forced to revel in the glory of the moment.
Well, Jayson Werth of the Phillies stole home tonight against the Dodgers, arguably in an even cooler fashion. Rather than simply going when a left handed pitcher was about to go into his windup, Werth went immediately after Dodgers' catcher Russell Martin had thrown the ball back to pitcher Rolando Belisario (who, by virtue of being right handed presumably should have been paying attention to Werth's ever-expanding lead on the previous 2 or 3 pitches). Now, it's not like the Phillies get totally ignored by the media. They, along with teams like LAA, CHW, and SFG, are probably in the second tier of media favoritism just behind the ol' BOS/NYY/NYM/CHC/LAD quintumvirate. But the reason for this whiny post is this: considering the fact that he's not Jacoby Ellsbury, do you think anyone in the media is even going to notice what Werth did?
That's rhetorical.
Actually, contrary to what I'm implying, the answer is probably yes. The fact that someone else stole home is an excellent opportunity for said media to take a trip down memory lane and talk about/show highlights of Ellsbury's steal all over again. God bless America.
Oh, by the way, have you heard about this totally underreported tidbit of news? Apparently David Ortiz hasn't hit a home run yet this season. Yeah, surprising, I know. I really had to do a lot of independent research to dig up that fascinating and totally relevant story. After all, he's the only former slugger in MLB history to start a season in his mid 30s with a big slump. Ever. But at least the Celtics are playing well, right? Rajon Rondo: already better than Isiah Thomas, or already WAY better than Isiah Thomas? Discuss.
43 comments:
Of course Rajon Rondo's WAY better than Isiah Thomas. Thomas didn't get a ring until his eighth season in the NBA and Rondo got one in his second season. It's not even close!
Rings, as everyone on planet Earth knows, are the only measure of NBA greatness. That's why Robert Horry will one day join immortals like K.C. Jones, Frank Ramsey and Bill Bradley in the Hall of Fame.
Fun anecdote: I was recently at my local ballpark for a game between two teams, neither of which were the Boston Red Sox. Somehow though, a Sox fan decided to attend the game. How do I know this fellow was a Red Sox fan you ask? Well, aside from the fact that he was adorned with the finest David Ortiz replica jersey money can buy; he proceeded to stand up, in the front row, and (loudly) proclaim "LET'S GO RED SOX!" *clap clap clapclapclap*.
When this fellow was booed, I made the casual observation that situations like this were why some people have a negative opinion of Boston sports teams and fans.
The crux of the whole situation, however, was that the Red Sox were actually playing a game at the exact same time we were watching our game live. He'd rather watch two teams, who weren't the Red Sox, play, but not without letting everyone in our section know his pro-Red Sox position. I just felt the story was apropos.
Elliot- I'll be that guy has been a HUGE Sox fan since way back in 2004. I hope he gets run over by a Light Rail train.
Robert Horry is a sort of modern-day Derek Jeter.
Also, why does this blog rock? Because where else will you see a word like "quintumverate"? Sure, it's misspelled, but it's there! Fuck YOU, ESPN! Hah!!!
While I agree, Larry, that the coverage of the story was over-done because it was Red Sox player... I think Ellsbury's "race-the-pitch" style steal is definitely more exciting than Werth's "race the throw back to the pitcher and then back to the catcher" steal.
Carry on with the necessary media-bashing.
Elliot,
I have a similar story that a friend of mine told me that also captures the pure douchebaggery of Red Sawks fans...
At a game (not involving said Red Sox) there was a woman fan completely decked out with David Ortiz regalia. She turns and asks fans at the game "Why are there no chalk lines from first to second and second to third." When told that there are never chalk lines in those places she went on to say that yes, indeed, at Fenway there are chalk lines from first to second and second to third.
Clueless bitch.
"Robert Horry is a sort of modern-day Derek Jeter."
Not sure if you're just trying to get my goat, but
a.) Robert Horry's career was over before Jeter's.
b.) Robert Horry isn't even in the same class of player.
I don't know anything about this alleged steal of home plate by Jayson Werth (I thought Jackie Robinson and Jacoby Ellsbury were the only ones who had ever done that) but I watched Baseball Tonight and I would like to report that Manny Ramirez has reached out to his Dodgers teammates.
I do agree with Dan-Bob that the Ellsbury steal was more exciting but the result is really the same, with a run being scored. I think the real difference in the two plays is that ESPN will publicize and talk about the Ellsbury steal more because it happened during a Yankees-Red Sox game and it was on ESPN. Naturally that makes the steal more important.
We all know that either Ellsbury's or Werth's steal of home are nothing compared to the time that Benny "The Jet" Rodriguez stole home.
They say he's lost a step but I wouldn't be surprised to see some fireworks.
I don't believe it! They don't see him I don't believe it! SAFE! SAFE! SAFE!
Smalls is actually not a hero but a geek/spaz. Kind of like the song "Centerfield", which sucks, because the hero is a dipshit who never gets off the bench.
Smalls learns to become a decent ballplayer one day.
And later becomes Joe Buck.
Wendy Peppercorn probably has left Squints by now, right? *polishing glasses*
Just to add another example of the pathetic nature of Red Sox fans. I live in Boston (sadly) -- but hate the Sox (not so sadly) -- and was in Baltimore on the final day of the season a few years ago. Figured I'd catch thee game, which did not involve said Sox. We were enjoying the game when a family of four arrived in our row -- mom, dad, two young kids. Each one of them was wearing a Sox hat, jersey and t-shirt. All four of them. In Camden Yards. They looked like the morons they were (although, we held the young children blameless - can't choose your parents, after all!). The Sox, meanwhile, were in Boston that day playing the Indians. Sad.
JM - weak post. Never use "(sadly)" again.
Thanks.
LB:
Don't we WANT to alienate the sort of readers who would be alienated by this post?
Commenter fiiiiiight!
And D-B, I'm just fine with alienating dumbfuck mouthbreathing Boston fans, but there are plenty of reasonably intelligent and unobnoxious Boston fans out there too. So I might be throwing out the baby with the bathwater a little bit.
Good Guy At Sports is a solid BoSox Guy At Sports.
Also, I wish he would make more posts on his blog.
Do you think the reasonably intelligent and unobnoxious Boston fans out there would be alienated by this?
What I mean is: do reasonably intelligent and unobnoxious Boston fans concede that the media's overexposure of their teams is a problem?
"do reasonably intelligent and unobnoxious Boston fans concede that the media's overexposure of their teams is a problem?"
Yes. Yes we do. And no, I do not feel alienated by this. In fact, I think its funny when red sox fans get ripped on. Especially when said fans dont know what the fuck they're talking about, and just spout off about how amazing Ellsbury is because he had one fantastic postseason and is really fast.
I love old school BoSox fans, from before 2004. They tend to be passionate, know a lot about baseball, and at least about the American League. It's teh bandwagon effect, along with the constant ESPN coverage, which makes the BoSox intolerable. The old school folks hate the bandwagoners as much as the rest of us. Most don't like becoming the New Yankees either.
That said, offend away good man.
By the way, did anyone here besides Jarrett notice that the Bruins were down 3-1 in their playoff series and have since forced a Game 7?
I have a hard time hating the Bruins due to, well, their lack of exposure. But why the hell not- Go 'Canes.
Also, Martin and Fred, I had no idea you were already among us. So... consider me grateful for your rationality.
"b.) Robert Horry isn't even in the same class of player."Don't be so down on Big Shot Bob! I bet he'd make a good-hit, poor-fielding shortstop.
But yes, my earlier comment was in jest. Or what passes for it in my old age.
I think it's time to bring back the nicknames. Obviously we have Bonus, Fartin, and BenHoodYella. But I'm pretty sure we can add Smelliot, Sped Frigger, Spay-than, Shave-ier, B.M., Pee fart, Fairy Pee, Man-Gob, Ferrett, Gay wad-of-jizz, and of course, Venezuelan Beaver Cheese.
At any rate, carry on.
Hahaha "forced to revel in the glory of the moment"? Seems extreme.
Does ESPN--the largest sports updates/"analysis" provider in the world--drop an insanely disproportionate amount of coverage on a half-dozen teams? Yes and triple-yes. However. The oldest cliche in the blogosphere really really really applies here: If you don't like it, you don't have to watch it.
ESPN's the biggest entity out there, not the only one. You know as well as I do that if you only ever want to hear news about, like, the Brewers' farm clubs, there are resources for that.
Also, I don't think ESPN's big-market obsession qualifies as a "problem". They're in the entertainment business, and they cater to their market. I don't really see how you can fault them for that.
Anyway, my understanding is that you're looking for TV coverage of all 30 MLB teams; my 100% serious suggestion is to see if you can find a satellite provider that carries the Canadian sports channels (especially "the Score"). Up here they lead with the Blue Jays, Yankees and Red Sox, but they get around to full highlight packages of every game (AL and NL) every night.
What's all this about the Patriots?
PV:
More and more, people HAVE been turning to alternate outlets for coverage. The MLB network has been a godsend for me and I haven't read content from ESPN.com (besides Rob Neyer's blog) for years.
That said, even as someone who doesn't go out of his way to watch ESPN(quite the contrary), it's a bit hard to avoid--it's a shame that I can't turn on their essentially 24 hour sports news show and watch, you know, sports. Instead I get treated to soap operas, BOS/NYY lies ("their rivalry is so historically great!!!!!"), and NASCAR.
I can choose not to watch it, and I usually do. It's just a shame I have to make that choice.
Passive, my comment about being forced to revel in the glory of the moment was in regards to the media as a whole, not just ESPN. That fucking steal, and some dipshit's analysis of it, was EVERYwhere. All outlets. Seemed unnecessary to me.
Also, I believe your analysis of ESPN is too one-sided. You say they're just catering to their market- I disagree. They are certainly doing that to an extent, but they are also influencing the market and shaping it. I think there are a lot of generic "baseball" fans out there (not living in New England, New York, or Chicago) who are easily influenced by what they see and hear in the media. The less they hear about other teams- like, say for example the team geographically closest to them- and the more they hear about the SAWKS and Yanks and Cubbies, the more likely they are to decide to develop an affinity for one of those big teams despite having no connection to that team whatsoever. I understand a lot of the Red Sox fans are probably just front runners, but how do you explain the Yankee and Cub fans? ESPN is a big part of this phenomenon (which I can't prove exists, but which I strongly suspect exists). I'm not saying they have to treat all 30 teams equally in terms of time spend on analysis and highlights, but fucking come on, they could at least make time in Sportscenter for a highlight or two from every game the previous night. More often than not, at least 7 or 8 of the previous night's 15 games don't even get one second of coverage on Sportscenter. To me, that's ridiculous. There has to be at least ONE good play/interesting highlight from every game, every night.
Larry - Not only that, but they don't cover the games that are on different networks unless they're too huge to ignore.
Yesterday on Sportscenter, they spend about 10 minutes on basketball. The entire segment was spent discussing game six between the Lakers and Rockets, even though Denver and Dallas were playing last night. But I guess if the game is on TNT, then it's not really happening.
I still can't understand ESPN. What made them a staple was Sportscenter, which in its hey day was 30 minutes and just back to back to back highights of every game played in major American sports. It was the era of just enough time for a cute Did You Know? at the very end.
Clearly, ESPN is not run by total morons. I'm sure they have numbers, figures and viewership and marketing data to back up their decision to slowly, over time, change the nature of Sportscenter. What these numbers are and what it tells them, I don't know.
Ooooo, interesting. I hadn't considered that. I'm still not sure that qualifies as a problem, though. The reasons people start caring about sports teams are inherently silly. You can find Cardinals fans in like Montana and Mississippi, because they (used to?) have a wide-ranging radio broadcast. People become fans because as seven-year-olds they thought a logo was cool, or because there was a player with a funny last name. Really, even supporting the "home team" is pretty arbitrary: it's one group of mercenary mostly-non-locals against another. If people in Virginia decide they love the Cubs because they see Alfonso Soriano's face is on their TV every day, is that a real negative?
Chris, I am all over the MLB Network. I have steadfastly refused to watch any ESPN baseball coverage (and I have succeeded slightly) as much as I can over the past couple of years. MLB Network is freaking awesome. They cover the teams like they need to be covered.
What annoys me about SportsCenter is that it is an entertainment show now and not a sports highlight show, which is what it used to be. It was like the news for sports. Now it has 10 minute commentary on Manny Ramirez's latest adventures or some other story we are all tired of.
I completely agree with Larry that they are creating a market for certain teams by featuring them. There is a reason so many fans for certain teams "travel well" now.
"If people in Virginia decide they love the Cubs because they see Alfonso Soriano's face is on their TV every day, is that a real negative?"
Nothing, so long as the goal is branding.
But sports are not movies. There are 32 MLB teams and if only 3 thrive in terms of popularity or interest, then you'll get the ratings debacles of any World Series that doesn't have the $$$ teams in it. 2005 (Sox/Stros), 2006 (Cards/Tigers), 2007 NLCS (D-Backs/Rox), 2008 (Phils/Rays)--these are series that we're supposed to infer are boring because they don't involve the branded teams.
This is not inherently a bad thing, but it is something I don't enjoy about the current state of affairs, and it's something that ESPN has HELPED (they're not solely responsible for it, but they HELPED) manufacture.
I have to agree with Chris in that these series didn't involve the marquee teams and they had bad ratings, so there is something wrong there. Naturally some teams are going to have more fans than other teams but it doesn't help that every move of some teams is analyzed and studied on the various baseball shows on ESPN and SportsCenter while some of the other teams get the shaft.
I just don't enjoy it either because many times during the highlights on SportsCenter it takes 20 minutes before a really good game can get any type of clips shown for it. A great example of this madness is the Joba Chamberlain bullpen/starter debate that raged last year and the example used in this post about Ellsbury stealing home. Two things that would probably not even make SportsCenter or would not be a part of the beginning highlight package, makes it on the show.
It just all annoys me.
Remember, there are Braves fans, or were, spread over the country because when Turner was broadcasting them every game some people ended up fans pretty much by osmossis. I think that ESPN in the end has hurt itself by the endless pumping up of just the few teams. While the ratings for them will be higher, they get killed, as Chris mentioned, when it's not one of those teams. This was not always the case. Sherman...set the way back machine....
The Cards-Royals World Series in 1986, 46 share, 36 million watched, while in 1991 Braves vs. Twins 39 share with 35.6 million watching. People watched for great stories, because they loved the game, and wanted to see what these teams were about. These were the kind of series that last years Phils-Rays were. One fairly well known team with a good fan base in the Phils, and a come out of nowhere you gotta check these guys out group in the Rays. Instead, the ratings sucked. I think a chunk of that blame has to go to ESPN and Fox to some extent because they push, push, push, BoSox, Yanks, Cubs, and Mets. This also explains why their in season games without those teams also suffer, because the "casual" fan glances, doesn't see the "big" teams and does soemthing else. The rest of us are watching MLB Network, or the local broadcast affiliate. I refuse to listen to Joe Morgan spew non-sensicals while watching teams I've seen a dozen times on this channel.
I used to love the "Hotel California" Monday Night baseball boradcasts ESPN used to do. Seriously, an Oakland vs Brewers game could happen...as oppossed to today when hell would freeze over before we saw Padres vs Brewers this season.
I think you have hit on something Martin and that is while the focus on the Cubs, BoSox, Yanks, and Mets have really caused casual fans to watch those teams play, it has also caused casual fans to have no interest in a Phils-Rays World Series. No one wants to see those two play, except those who like baseball and fans of those teams. It gets to the point I can almost predict, if you give me one team that is playing on Sunday Night Baseball, what other team is playing. This week I did not get it but usually they go for ratings, which I can't blame them and put the big teams on there.
I think both of those World Series would not have a great viewing audience if they happened today because no one wants to see small market teams like the Royals and the Twins play in a World Series no matter how good and poorly 1st base umpired the series is.
PV referenced the old cliche "If you don't like, you don't have to watch it" which sounds like a lot of us are trying to do when it comes to ESPN. But ESPN is still the most solid news source for fans of all sports. If you only favor one sport then you can probably look elsewhere easier.
The problem is that just because I leave SportCenter on doesn't mean I'm watching. You can't shove NYY/BOS down my throat and then say, "See the ratings are telling us they love it." I don't know anyone who has actually said, "I have to go watch SportCenter because I'm wondering what Favre and T.O. are up to in March." But ESPN tells me and because I've seen it doesn't mean I was interested in the first place.
I'm MORE interested in a breakdown of all the games the previous night and then a preview of tonight's matchups. The fact that ESPN forces over-the-top analysis on a few teams/stars in between and I don't change the channel, doesn't mean I love it.
I do agree that ESPN execs must have numbers on this so the only thing I can think of is - all the sideshow drama must appeal to casual fans more than sports fans and they figure the rest of us don't have enough options to get away from it.
That last point is very interesting--
I think the thought process is probably hardcore sports fans are already the core audience and aren't going to tune out, so we have to lock in people who only view sports as drama and entertainment.
Hence the big fucking spectacles of the Super Bowl, commercials and halftime show and all--people who are NFL fans are going to watch the Super Bowl even if it's a fucking spectacle meant to appeal to 40 year old women and 12 year old children, but they really want those 12 year old children.
Same thing with ESPN--they know that guys who want highlights and analysis are going to watch no matter what--they want to hook the people who really care that much if Favre is a "good person" or a "jerk" or if "Boston V. NY is the greatest historic rivalry ever!!!" (even though it assuredly is not)
Not that I'm defending ESPN, but I'd like to point out that if you're only looking for scores, highlights, matchups, and game breakdowns, there is ESPN News.
I wish it was Elliot - the following is a limited sample size but after reading your post, my initial thoughts were confirmed...
End of 7PM hour - Action Sports/Xgames summary, then bios on Tisdale & Rosburgs passing. Fine. Less than 30 seconds on summary of 4 games in action (obvious limitations on highlights) but still 30 seconds. All fine.
Start of 8PM hour - Michael Phelps first meet since drug incident (and Bejing). Ok lead in? Next 5 minutes on Manny Ramirez meeting with teammates today. Next 3 minutes on ARod returning to the Bronx tonight. The word "drug" was used 55 times in the first 12 minutes of the 8PM hour.
After that was how all 3 Boston teams stunk at the same time last night (not real highlights of any of the 3 games).
I guess my point is ESPN News doesn't seem to fall too far from ESPN. And yes, I'll say it again, limited sample size but this was top of the hour "scores, highlights, matchups, and game breakdowns" channel.
Post a Comment