PDA

View Full Version : tired of our lack of respect (a long rant)


jeremyb1
02-20-2003, 05:58 PM
as a whole i don't have huge complaints with the general comments the media has made about our competitiveness in the upcomming season. most analysts have given us a fair amount of respect since the colon acquisition and i agree that it would be unfair to consider us to be the favorites ahead of the twins right now.

that said, i have found the specific comments made about our team by the national media to be completely maddening. a prime example of of this is sports weekly's spring training preview which i received in the mail today.

the most frustrating of all the criticism's of our club in my opinion is the lack of respect given to garland and wright as our third and fourth starters. in just this one issue of sports weekly our pitching depth is critisized in their power rankings with the comment "filling out the rotation is still a pressing need". then in their spring preview they state "despite the presence of colon and buehrle, the sox still have reason to be concerned about their pitching. garland occassionaly has been dominant but was still too inconsistant last season (12-12 4.58)." the previews prediction for our season is that "it doesn't take long to realize that they'll have to trade a key offensive player to boost a pitching staff that's not good enough to keep the sox within hailing distance of the twins."

sports weekly also seems to underrate the sox hitting "if thomas can even approach his former numbers the lineup should be solid". perhaps this is one of the largest problems with sports weekly's analysis, that they are analyzing our pitching without giving proper respect to our offense.

considering the fact that we scored the third most runs in baseball last season and the fourth best ops while thomas was having a dismal season and subtracted only ray durham as far as valuable hitters go, i'd say our offense was outstanding last season and will continue to be outstanding this season regardless of how thomas hits. if thomas hits anything like he does in '00, i would argue our offense will not be merely "solid" but instead the best offense in all of baseball by a considerable amount.

clearly if one does not recognize the superior nature of our offense that could cause a person to nitpick about our rotation depth. however, it seems to me that since we have a better offense than any al contender with the possible exceptions of new york and boston, our pitching should not be held to such high standards. i don't think we need to outpitch minnesota to be within "halling distance".

that said, the standards placed on our staff still seem to be unfair and inconsistent with what's being asked of other team's pitching staff's. the sox allowed the 8th fewest runs in the al last season and featured the 7th best ops, meaning that our pitching was middle of the road. since last season we have upgraded our pen by the additions of white, glover, and possible also by replacing foulke with koch. in the rotation, todd ritchie's production has been replaced with colon's. does that mean we'll have one of the best pitching teams in baseball? probably not. however, we should be one of the top five in the al. of the six teams that have a reasonable chance of outpitching us this season in the al, again only the yankees and boston can hope to hit anywhere near as well as us.

as for the criticism's of garland and wright, these same standards are not applied to teams such as the twins. the twins' third best started (who started at least 20 games) last season was brad radke who carried an era of 4.72, yet sports weekly only briefly touches on the twins health problems and says "pitching depth is what figured to set the twins apart from the sox in the al central race this year." even if one were to be generous and assume the twins have the sense to put santana in the rotation to start the season and he comes anywhere near repeating his era of 3 last season, the twins third best starter last season still had a rotation of 4.20 this season which is by no means light years better than garland. the mariners' third best starter last season was freddy garcia with an era (4.39) nearly identical to garlands. obviously garcia has proven himself more in the past but you get the point. it seems highly unlikely that garland and wright will regeress at this point yet silly excuses such as inconsistency are used to discredit their actual performances last season and question our pitching depth.

i don't have a huge problem with criticism from the media. just get your act together and question something legitimate. question crede's plate discipline, jose's fielding, olivo's game calling skills, alomar's health, paully's poor second half. downplaying the dominance of our offense and discrediting garland and wright just because they're young pitchers doesn't sit well with me.

baggio202
02-20-2003, 06:06 PM
i would be curious to see what these same publications say about the cubs...could you reprint what each article says about the cubs next to what they about us???...just curious how many think the cubs are a better team then the sox right now...

ma-gaga
02-20-2003, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
the most frustrating of all the criticism's of our club in my opinion is the lack of respect given to garland and wright as our third and fourth starters.
...
as for the criticism's of garland and wright, these same standards are not applied to teams such as the twins. the twins' third best started (who started at least 20 games) last season was brad radke who carried an era of 4.72
...
even if one were to be generous and assume the twins have the sense to put santana in the rotation to start the season and he comes anywhere near repeating his era of 3 last season,


I guess the deal is that most of the media recognize Brad Radke over Jon Garland. Radke won 20 games once in his lifetime (for a really really bad Twins team). Once Garland and Wright make the leap to 16-8, they'll get their "respect".

Have you looked at what a team ERA of 4.40 gives up for runs over a team ERA of 4.20?? Using 1600 innings; I get 782 runs vs 746 runs. Which means the team offense has to make up those 36 runs. Chicago EASILY has the offense to do this, but we're being generous with the team ERA's (according to their 2002 stats) and I'm completely ignoring unearned runs. IMHO, the difference is not negligible Pythagorian wise.

The Twins will get Santana his 10-15 starts again. Their pitching will not last the season without injuries. But he's their 6th starter. What happens to the W.Sox if Buehrle/Colon get hurt? I don't know who they are planning on using for their 5th starter, let alone their 6th starter. I found it kind of funny that you complain about the lack of respect for Wright/Garland then kind of backslap Santana...

:) - Besides, it's spring training, ANYTHING is possible...

jeremyb1
02-20-2003, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by baggio202
i would be curious to see what these same publications say about the cubs...could you reprint what each article says about the cubs next to what they about us???...just curious how many think the cubs are a better team then the sox right now...

the cubs are ranked 16 and we're ranked 12. they aren't predicted to make the playoff but sports weekly predicts that "mark prior becomes a cy young award candidate and kerry wood isn't far behind...the cubs actually pull together this year or else"

Lip Man 1
02-20-2003, 11:21 PM
Jeremy:

A few points if I may.

You know the way I feel about "stats." And I know how you feel about "stats" so I won't go there. However it is a fact that both Garland and Wright (along with Buehrle and Rauch) ALL have less then three years experience in MLB.

That's a difficult and dicey situation. I'd go so far as to say "dangerous." Especially considering the Sox "luck" with pitchers the past few years.

I have no problem with the Yankees having seven starters, if someone gets hurt, they aren't screwed and come July when the price of pitching goes sky high, they may be able to trade some surplus for something they need.

Considering the youth in the rotation and the lack of accomplishments by the pitchers you mentioned (excluding Buehrle) I can certainly see why the "national media" hasn't fawned over them. Potential is nice...actual accomplishments are better (and I don't mean going .500)

The other point is that I'm wondering what you expect the "national media" to say?

Given the state of the Sox franchise, given the mediocre results the team has had since the White Flag Trade (you remember the column I did where the record came out to a underwhelming 83-79), given the adverse relationship that Jerry Reinsdorf seems to have with anybody in the media, and given the lack of dynamic PR ability by Rob Gallas, what have the Sox done to really attract any attention of the sort you'd like?

This basically is a mediocre, clueless, franchise with no sense of purpose or dirrection. They haven't won anything, won't spend the money necessary to "buy" a title, won't even spend the money to adequately represent the 3rd largest city in America. I just don't understand what you think the media should do?

Maggs Ordonez is a terrific player...who rarely talks to the media. Frank Thomas has had a tremendous career and may be poised to a return to glory, and he won't speak to the media. Mark Buehrle is a terrific pitcher who admited he gets flustered around the media (except in St. Louis where he can't keep his mouth shut!)

The Sox unfortunately do not have any characters, or people with an overpowering media presence. You can't confuse this team with say the 85 Bears or for that matter the 90 Sox who had "Psyco" Lyons dropping his pants on the field in Detroit, a charasmatic Ozzie Guillen and an off centered Scott Radinsky and Ron Kittle.

The "national media" will come around if (when?) the Sox actually accomplish something this year and in the next few seasons, and that's how it should be.

The Sox had no trouble getting media attention from 1990 through 1994 basically because they were winning and were good.

Lip

T Dog
02-20-2003, 11:30 PM
Of course, everyone is raving about the quality of the Cubs starting rotation, which is led by a 12-game winner and the perception of potential.

nut_stock
02-20-2003, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by T Dog
Of course, everyone is raving about the quality of the Cubs starting rotation, which is led by a 12-game winner and the perception of potential.

LOL, that's got to be better than having a 20 game winner followed by a 19 game winner.

Bmr31
02-21-2003, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jeremy:

A few points if I may.

You know the way I feel about "stats." And I know how you feel about "stats" so I won't go there. However it is a fact that both Garland and Wright (along with Buehrle and Rauch) ALL have less then three years experience in MLB.

That's a difficult and dicey situation. I'd go so far as to say "dangerous." Especially considering the Sox "luck" with pitchers the past few years.

I have no problem with the Yankees having seven starters, if someone gets hurt, they aren't screwed and come July when the price of pitching goes sky high, they may be able to trade some surplus for something they need.

Considering the youth in the rotation and the lack of accomplishments by the pitchers you mentioned (excluding Buehrle) I can certainly see why the "national media" hasn't fawned over them. Potential is nice...actual accomplishments are better (and I don't mean going .500)

The other point is that I'm wondering what you expect the "national media" to say?

Given the state of the Sox franchise, given the mediocre results the team has had since the White Flag Trade (you remember the column I did where the record came out to a underwhelming 83-79), given the adverse relationship that Jerry Reinsdorf seems to have with anybody in the media, and given the lack of dynamic PR ability by Rob Gallas, what have the Sox done to really attract any attention of the sort you'd like?

This basically is a mediocre, clueless, franchise with no sense of purpose or dirrection. They haven't won anything, won't spend the money necessary to "buy" a title, won't even spend the money to adequately represent the 3rd largest city in America. I just don't understand what you think the media should do?

Maggs Ordonez is a terrific player...who rarely talks to the media. Frank Thomas has had a tremendous career and may be poised to a return to glory, and he won't speak to the media. Mark Buehrle is a terrific pitcher who admited he gets flustered around the media (except in St. Louis where he can't keep his mouth shut!)

The Sox unfortunately do not have any characters, or people with an overpowering media presence. You can't confuse this team with say the 85 Bears or for that matter the 90 Sox who had "Psyco" Lyons dropping his pants on the field in Detroit, a charasmatic Ozzie Guillen and an off centered Scott Radinsky and Ron Kittle.

The "national media" will come around if (when?) the Sox actually accomplish something this year and in the next few seasons, and that's how it should be.

The Sox had no trouble getting media attention from 1990 through 1994 basically because they were winning and were good.

Lip

Exactly. I am still trying to understand why individuals think the sox, or Garland and Wright, deserve "respect".

jeremyb1
02-21-2003, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Exactly. I am still trying to understand why individuals think the sox, or Garland and Wright, deserve "respect".

i think i backed that up statistically. i'm not asking for these guys to be considered outstanding pitchers but i think they've earned respect as 3 and 4 starters.

i agree with lip that there's no point in turning this into a stats argument. however, its not like i was even quoting whip, k/bb, k/ip, or bb/ip ratios here. all i'm talking about is era, how many earned runs per nine innings a pitcher averages. i hardly think that's inaccurate or unnecesarily complex as far as stats go. additionally, i fail to see how you can measure a players performance if you're unwilling to ever use any statistics whatsoever. i can understand thinking some people go too far when they rely on stats, but is it really unfair for me to use era to attempt to describe garland's performance last season?

jeremyb1
02-21-2003, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jeremy:

A few points if I may.

You know the way I feel about "stats." And I know how you feel about "stats" so I won't go there. However it is a fact that both Garland and Wright (along with Buehrle and Rauch) ALL have less then three years experience in MLB.

That's a difficult and dicey situation. I'd go so far as to say "dangerous." Especially considering the Sox "luck" with pitchers the past few years.

I have no problem with the Yankees having seven starters, if someone gets hurt, they aren't screwed and come July when the price of pitching goes sky high, they may be able to trade some surplus for something they need.

Considering the youth in the rotation and the lack of accomplishments by the pitchers you mentioned (excluding Buehrle) I can certainly see why the "national media" hasn't fawned over them. Potential is nice...actual accomplishments are better (and I don't mean going .500)

The other point is that I'm wondering what you expect the "national media" to say?

Given the state of the Sox franchise, given the mediocre results the team has had since the White Flag Trade (you remember the column I did where the record came out to a underwhelming 83-79), given the adverse relationship that Jerry Reinsdorf seems to have with anybody in the media, and given the lack of dynamic PR ability by Rob Gallas, what have the Sox done to really attract any attention of the sort you'd like?

This basically is a mediocre, clueless, franchise with no sense of purpose or dirrection. They haven't won anything, won't spend the money necessary to "buy" a title, won't even spend the money to adequately represent the 3rd largest city in America. I just don't understand what you think the media should do?

Maggs Ordonez is a terrific player...who rarely talks to the media. Frank Thomas has had a tremendous career and may be poised to a return to glory, and he won't speak to the media. Mark Buehrle is a terrific pitcher who admited he gets flustered around the media (except in St. Louis where he can't keep his mouth shut!)

The Sox unfortunately do not have any characters, or people with an overpowering media presence. You can't confuse this team with say the 85 Bears or for that matter the 90 Sox who had "Psyco" Lyons dropping his pants on the field in Detroit, a charasmatic Ozzie Guillen and an off centered Scott Radinsky and Ron Kittle.

The "national media" will come around if (when?) the Sox actually accomplish something this year and in the next few seasons, and that's how it should be.

The Sox had no trouble getting media attention from 1990 through 1994 basically because they were winning and were good.

Lip

as far as the inexperience of wright and garland, i don't think they are as inexperienced and unpredictable as you would make it seem. there seems to be a double standard here. if a player is exceptional, early in his career he's a proven pitcher.

buehrle also has less than three years yet since he's pitched well he's considered to be consistent. garland has started only 7 fewer games than buehrle in his career. its true that he hasn't been as consistant as buehrle from start to start but even buehrle gets lit up sometimes and with the exception of 70 innings in '00 as a 20 year old, garland has never had an era near 5. garland has a 4.65 era over 380 ip over the last three seasons. it seems highly unlikely that just because he's young he's going to get lit up this season and pitch much worse than he has the last two seasons.

all garland needs to do is come close to reproducing last season and i think he's a decent three compared to the rest of the talent in baseball. he may not be as good as the three's on most other playoff calliber teams but as i tried to explain in my post, i think its inredibly important to note that few playoff teams have hitting anywhere near as good as us so we can afford not to have a top of the line rotation if that's what it comes to.

wright doesn't have as much experience as garland, but its not as though we're talking about a rookie here. wright has pitched over 200 major league innings and continued to improve throughout the season last year. could he take a step back? yes, but just because the possibility exists that doesn't mean its likely. even if the worst does take place, we're still talking about a decent to good fifth starter here. if rauch or loaiza has a decent season which is every bit as likely as wright faultering we're still fine.

as for the issue of the national media, i'm not asking for them to make us a huge story. i just want credit given where credit is due. i can understand how ownership and a lack of marketability amongst out players could limit the amount of coverage we get but that shouldn't affect what is written about the quality of our players when the team is discussed. this is a team only two seasons removed from the best record in the american league. i just want fair coverage that's all. there's no reason the media should be expected to praise the cubs players just because people like wrigley field. that doesn't make any sense. that might be a reason to be sam-me on the cover (as sports weekly did) but not to give the team undue praise.

EnricoPallazzo
02-21-2003, 02:04 AM
Lip nailed it. Great response, with which I fully agree.Jacko

HOWEVER!

We fans are the ones who are shown no respect whatever. We deserve respect for maintaining our loyalty after having indignity after indignity piled upon us like snow piles on Buffalo all winter. We get all the respect that Jesse Jackson would at a KKK rally.

RESPECT OUR SUFFERING!

How many times do we hear about the long suffering Cubs and Red Sox fans! Anyone ever hear any ESPN heads mention long suffering White Sox fans?. Like we haven't suffered infinitely more than those fans have.

Has any other franchise in modern history worn black uniforms with whammo bird collars and shorts?

Has any other team, other tham the St Louis Browns, had an owner with less money than Bill Veeck? Oh wait, that WAS Bill Veeck.

Has any other team played on an astro turf infield with a grass outfield?

Has any other team had an owner whose true passion in life was collecting butterflies? (Allyn)

Which of the 3 teams in question had probably the best chance since 1919 to win a World Series the year a strike canceled the World Series.

Speaking of 1919!

Which teams play in baseball shrines, adored by all?

Which team plays in the most maligned venue south of the Twinkie Dome?

RESPECT OUR SUFFERING!

damn it

kermittheefrog
02-21-2003, 03:49 AM
I think you might be taking this one too seriously Jeremy. There are too many "analysts" out there that don't actually know their stuff. Most baseball writers don't get their jobs because they know a lot about baseball because the people hiring them don't know a lot about baseball either. A lot of sports weekly's guys fit into the "don't know jack about baseball" category. And the first thing guys who don't know anything about baseball care about is major league experience.

Garland and Wright won't get respect from them because they don't realize young players are good bets to improve, they think of young players as unpredictable players. These are guys who couldn't tell you why Miguel Olivo is a prosect and Aaron Miles isn't. Hell they probably consider Miles a prospect because he won the Southern League MVP. Bottom line is, the first thing guys that don't know anything about baseball is will question a player's experience because the player is unfamiliar and it's easy. Most importantly the casual fan won't question it.

I know the Sox are gonna be good, you know the Sox are gonna be good. Garland is one of the better breakout candidates in the AL. Joe Sheehan did a list of each league's top breakout candidates and Garland was up there with them in the AL.

Bmr31
02-21-2003, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I think you might be taking this one too seriously Jeremy. There are too many "analysts" out there that don't actually know their stuff. Most baseball writers don't get their jobs because they know a lot about baseball because the people hiring them don't know a lot about baseball either. A lot of sports weekly's guys fit into the "don't know jack about baseball" category. And the first thing guys who don't know anything about baseball care about is major league experience.

Garland and Wright won't get respect from them because they don't realize young players are good bets to improve, they think of young players as unpredictable players. These are guys who couldn't tell you why Miguel Olivo is a prosect and Aaron Miles isn't. Hell they probably consider Miles a prospect because he won the Southern League MVP. Bottom line is, the first thing guys that don't know anything about baseball is will question a player's experience because the player is unfamiliar and it's easy. Most importantly the casual fan won't question it.

I know the Sox are gonna be good, you know the Sox are gonna be good. Garland is one of the better breakout candidates in the AL. Joe Sheehan did a list of each league's top breakout candidates and Garland was up there with them in the AL.

You are so right. I mentioned this before. Most media guys know less than us, believe it or not. I will never stop saying, if you want to win a GOOD fantasy league, or if you want to truly learn baseball, DO NOT, listen to the media and DO NOT look at stats. Trends yes, last years stats, no.

hold2dibber
02-21-2003, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
as far as the inexperience of wright and garland, i don't think they are as inexperienced and unpredictable as you would make it seem. there seems to be a double standard here. if a player is exceptional, early in his career he's a proven pitcher.

buehrle also has less than three years yet since he's pitched well he's considered to be consistent. garland has started only 7 fewer games than buehrle in his career. its true that he hasn't been as consistant as buehrle from start to start but even buehrle gets lit up sometimes and with the exception of 70 innings in '00 as a 20 year old, garland has never had an era near 5. garland has a 4.65 era over 380 ip over the last three seasons. it seems highly unlikely that just because he's young he's going to get lit up this season and pitch much worse than he has the last two seasons.

all garland needs to do is come close to reproducing last season and i think he's a decent three compared to the rest of the talent in baseball. he may not be as good as the three's on most other playoff calliber teams but as i tried to explain in my post, i think its inredibly important to note that few playoff teams have hitting anywhere near as good as us so we can afford not to have a top of the line rotation if that's what it comes to.

wright doesn't have as much experience as garland, but its not as though we're talking about a rookie here. wright has pitched over 200 major league innings and continued to improve throughout the season last year. could he take a step back? yes, but just because the possibility exists that doesn't mean its likely. even if the worst does take place, we're still talking about a decent to good fifth starter here. if rauch or loaiza has a decent season which is every bit as likely as wright faultering we're still fine.

as for the issue of the national media, i'm not asking for them to make us a huge story. i just want credit given where credit is due. i can understand how ownership and a lack of marketability amongst out players could limit the amount of coverage we get but that shouldn't affect what is written about the quality of our players when the team is discussed. this is a team only two seasons removed from the best record in the american league. i just want fair coverage that's all. there's no reason the media should be expected to praise the cubs players just because people like wrigley field. that doesn't make any sense. that might be a reason to be sam-me on the cover (as sports weekly did) but not to give the team undue praise.

Well said, Jeremy.

hold2dibber
02-21-2003, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by EnricoPallazzo
Lip nailed it. Great response, with which I fully agree.Jacko

HOWEVER!

We fans are the ones who are shown no respect whatever. We deserve respect for maintaining our loyalty after having indignity after indignity piled upon us like snow piles on Buffalo all winter. We get all the respect that Jesse Jackson would at a KKK rally.

RESPECT OUR SUFFERING!

How many times do we hear about the long suffering Cubs and Red Sox fans! Anyone ever hear any ESPN heads mention long suffering White Sox fans?. Like we haven't suffered infinitely more than those fans have.

Has any other franchise in modern history worn black uniforms with whammo bird collars and shorts?

Has any other team, other tham the St Louis Browns, had an owner with less money than Bill Veeck? Oh wait, that WAS Bill Veeck.

Has any other team played on an astro turf infield with a grass outfield?

Has any other team had an owner whose true passion in life was collecting butterflies? (Allyn)

Which of the 3 teams in question had probably the best chance since 1919 to win a World Series the year a strike canceled the World Series.

Speaking of 1919!

Which teams play in baseball shrines, adored by all?

Which team plays in the most maligned venue south of the Twinkie Dome?

RESPECT OUR SUFFERING!

damn it

Don't forget:

Disco Demolition

The White Flag trade

Ribbie and Rhubarb

The Sportsvision fiasco and pushing Harry Caray to the North Side;

Terry Bevington;

etc., etc., etc.

Red Sox fans actually have won since their last WS title - they've been to the World Series several times and have won lots of playoff series. The White Sox haven't won a single playoff series since '17 and haven't won a home playoff GAME since '59.

The Cubs haven't won like the Red Sox have, but somehow, their decades of losing is somehow cute and celebrated while our suffering is simply ignored.

Ugh.

T Dog
02-21-2003, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by EnricoPallazzo
Has any other team played on an astro turf infield with a grass outfield?

About 30 years ago, I read that the Kansas City Royals players actually wanted a grass outfield and a synthetic infield in their new park.

hold2dibber
02-21-2003, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by EnricoPallazzo
Has any other franchise in modern history worn black uniforms with whammo bird collars and shorts?

Sure! Tons of ladies' softball teams in the '60s ad '70s did!

Oh, wait, you meant major league baseball teams? Um. No, I think not.

BKozi
02-21-2003, 12:09 PM
I'm an out-of-state Sox fan so I know how frustrating it can be to try to follow the Sox. A good portion of my day is spent jumping back and forth from sight to sight on the internet to see if anything has been updated. However, I really don't see a lack of media coverage as a problem. Here's why:

The media does not get paid to tell stories fairly and accurately. They get paid to tell stories people want to hear. For whatever reason, whether it's the players on the field, the city, the ownership, the crosstown rivals, etc., the White Sox don't get a fair shake by the media. If the rest of the country wants to hear about how cute it was when the poor cubs lost 14-2, that is what the media will report on. I personally don't know what the attraction is to some teams, but if everyone wants to hear about it, that's what Peter Gammons will report on. It's all about ratings.

To shift gears a bit, it really doesn't matter what the media says anyways. Public perception doesn't mean squat in October. Sports teams and their fans have a fairly straightforward relationship: without the fans, there is no sports team, without the sportsteam, there are no fans. In the end, it boils down to your self satisfaction that you get from being a fan. If the Sox win the World Series this year, I will be extremely happy because I am a Sox fan and I can say that my team is better than everyone else's. The amount of media coverage that they get before, during, or after the season will not change my feelings one bit. It won't matter if ESPN broke the story that Joe Crede had a cancar sore in June.

I'll step off my soap box now. I'll still be checking all the sports websites daily to see if there are any updates, but come April, it really doesn't matter.

jeremyb1
02-21-2003, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I think you might be taking this one too seriously Jeremy. There are too many "analysts" out there that don't actually know their stuff. Most baseball writers don't get their jobs because they know a lot about baseball because the people hiring them don't know a lot about baseball either. A lot of sports weekly's guys fit into the "don't know jack about baseball" category. And the first thing guys who don't know anything about baseball care about is major league experience.

Garland and Wright won't get respect from them because they don't realize young players are good bets to improve, they think of young players as unpredictable players. These are guys who couldn't tell you why Miguel Olivo is a prosect and Aaron Miles isn't. Hell they probably consider Miles a prospect because he won the Southern League MVP. Bottom line is, the first thing guys that don't know anything about baseball is will question a player's experience because the player is unfamiliar and it's easy. Most importantly the casual fan won't question it.

I know the Sox are gonna be good, you know the Sox are gonna be good. Garland is one of the better breakout candidates in the AL. Joe Sheehan did a list of each league's top breakout candidates and Garland was up there with them in the AL.

you make a great point kermit. most journalists don't know that much about the sports they cover. it doesn't make sense for me to get frustrated about it but sometimes i get bored i have little else to do. hehe. even though i know its not realistic to expect all baseball writers to know what they're talking about and that's unlikely to change, it still seems ridiculous to me.

also, i missed that sheehan article. is that online?

jeremyb1
02-21-2003, 01:38 PM
oops. double post.

ma-gaga
02-21-2003, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
most journalists don't know that much about the sports they cover.

I think the real problem is that they have to 'dumb down' their commentary to appeal to the 'casual fans'. The problem is you know a lot more than joe baseball fan and they are trying to market themselves to the 'nuclear family'...

I have a really hard time believing that Ron Dibble/Steve Lyons is as much of an idiot as they come off on tv as. Sometime somewhere they have to have figured something out and conveyed it well. Every once in a while you'll find a guy that doesn't talk down the game to make it 'easy' for the casual fan.

Even Tony Gwynn is starting to get into the ignorant sports commentary role, and I would not call this guy an idiot. But it's easier and it makes more money to reinforce ignorant preconceptions, than to actually push out against the grain. Plus Peter Gammons gets good ratings. He must know what he's doing.

"Chicks dig the longball..." Funny commercial, but it kind of summerizes the lack of knowledge of the strategies of baseball. All they want to care about is the HR guys... sigh. :gulp:

Iwritecode
02-21-2003, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by BKozi
To shift gears a bit, it really doesn't matter what the media says anyways. Public perception doesn't mean squat in October.

No, but it sure means a lot the rest of the season. Why do you think the Cubs draw such huge crowds? Because the media talks about how cute and lovable they are and how great the ballpark is etc... In the meantime anything we see/hear about the Sox is nothing but negativity about the neighborhood, the ballpark, the team, etc... Then Joe casual fan sees this and guess where he decides to spend his money on his day off? or his weekend trip into town?

(theoretically) Better media coverage = more attendance = more money to spend on talent = better players = more games won = WS!

jeremyb1
02-21-2003, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
I have a really hard time believing that Ron Dibble/Steve Lyons is as much of an idiot as they come off on tv as. Sometime somewhere they have to have figured something out and conveyed it well. Every once in a while you'll find a guy that doesn't talk down the game to make it 'easy' for the casual fan.


i feel like most of the guys that specialize in baseball like rogers, gammons, rosenthal, et al don't dumb down their commentary. they'll realistically discuss the ramifications of a players, contract, age, and other key factors which seem basic to most of us yet elude the "common fan".

BKozi
02-21-2003, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
No, but it sure means a lot the rest of the season. Why do you think the Cubs draw such huge crowds? Because the media talks about how cute and lovable they are and how great the ballpark is etc... In the meantime anything we see/hear about the Sox is nothing but negativity about the neighborhood, the ballpark, the team, etc... Then Joe casual fan sees this and guess where he decides to spend his money on his day off? or his weekend trip into town?

(theoretically) Better media coverage = more attendance = more money to spend on talent = better players = more games won = WS!

Very good point.

There is some mystical attraction to Wrigley Field which I don't think anyone understands...including the fans in attendance. The thing the Sox have to do though is win now when they got the talent to do it. Nobody wants to go to a game of an underachieving team. The Sox have the talent so this can also work in reverse: talent = more games won = more attendance.