PDA

View Full Version : USA Today Sports Weekly on the 2005 postseason


Cambridge
11-02-2005, 03:56 PM
I just interviewed two writers from USA Today Sports Weekly, Devin Clancy and Steve DiMeglio, to get their thoughts on the 2005 postseason. A great deal of the questions -- which are phrased as opinions -- deal directly with the White Sox. I thought it would be of interest here.

http://www.redsoxnation.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=18804

vafan
11-02-2005, 04:07 PM
They can't get over NY and Boston, can they?

I think Boston is in big trouble next year, and Epstein's resignation isn't going to help. (For one, I hope it takes them out of the Paul Konerko sweeps.)

SoxFan78
11-02-2005, 04:10 PM
RSN: The Red Sox and Yankees both losing in the first round was bad for baseball; where is the drama and national interest without them?


Who said these two teams not in the second and third rounds was bad for baseball? Oh yeah, consider the source.

Leave your east coast bias at the door before posting some kind of article like this.

bobowhite
11-02-2005, 04:16 PM
I'd rather see eight teams not located in Boston and New York in the playoffs next year than have those teams go at it again.

WestSox
11-02-2005, 04:18 PM
Leave your east coast bias at the door before posting some kind of article like this.

They don't seem that biased to me..

DEVIN CLANCY: Itís natural to want a rubber match after the last two years, but I think most peopleís heads would have imploded under the hype it would generate. But Iím sensing some backlash among hardcore baseball fans against those two. It was a refreshing change to not see the same images. And besides, both teams were so flawed, they didnít really deserve to advance.

STEVE DIMEGLIO: It was bad for those in Boston and New York. There was plenty of great baseball and high drama -- see Albert Pujols, Chris Burke and A.J. Pierzynski. If fringe baseball fans decided not to watch because the Yankees or Red Sox werenít involved, itís their loss. Do the lowest World Series ratings in history hurt baseball? It hurt the bottom line, yes, and it hurt a fan base limited by the narrow view that only great drama and good baseball can be found in New York or Boston.

SoxFan78
11-02-2005, 04:19 PM
They don't seem that biased to me..

DEVIN CLANCY: Itís natural to want a rubber match after the last two years, but I think most peopleís heads would have imploded under the hype it would generate. But Iím sensing some backlash among hardcore baseball fans against those two. It was a refreshing change to not see the same images. And besides, both teams were so flawed, they didnít really deserve to advance.

STEVE DIMEGLIO: It was bad for those in Boston and New York. There was plenty of great baseball and high drama -- see Albert Pujols, Chris Burke and A.J. Pierzynski. If fringe baseball fans decided not to watch because the Yankees or Red Sox werenít involved, itís their loss. Do the lowest World Series ratings in history hurt baseball? It hurt the bottom line, yes, and it hurt a fan base limited by the narrow view that only great drama and good baseball can be found in New York or Boston.

I meant the question from the writer was biased, not the answer.

WestSox
11-02-2005, 04:21 PM
I meant the question from the writer was biased, not the answer.

My bad. It was nice to see that the interviewees didn't take the bait.

daveeym
11-02-2005, 04:23 PM
It's an interview done for a red sox board what do you expect? So lay off em and analyze the interviewee's responses instead of crapping on some cross team sharing.


So anway, DEVIN CLANCY at least got it right, not many people overachieved on the Sox. Jose and possibly some of the bullpen MAY have overachieved but as a whole this team underachieved across the board when it came to individual statistics. Garland you got to believe he "came into his own" or "matured" rather than "over achieving."

Cambridge
11-02-2005, 04:25 PM
Leave your east coast bias at the door before posting some kind of article like this.

If you're referring to the phrasing of the questions/opinions, I was conducting an interview. The object is to elicit thoughtful reponses, and I feel both Clancy and DiMeglio provided exactly that. I also thought they gave the White Sox due credit for the most part. But wait, they're national, so they must be anti-White Sox. I forgot.

As for my east coast bias, I grew up in the midwest.

Soxzilla
11-02-2005, 04:32 PM
If you're referring to the phrasing of the questions/opinions, I was conducting an interview. The object is to elicit thoughtful reponses, and I feel both Clancy and DiMeglio provided exactly that. I also thought they gave the White Sox due credit for the most part. But wait, they're national, so they must be anti-White Sox. I forgot.

As for my east coast bias, I grew up in the midwest.

Go to hell.

No offense.

asindc
11-02-2005, 04:37 PM
Go to hell.

No offense.

Zilla,

Come on now. Was that really called for? Other than not posting this in the General Baseball section, I have no problem with him sharing this. As I've said before we won it all, and I will keep saying now that we hold the crown, winning cures all. In fact, winning more cures even more. The Sox get much love, from all of us dedicated fans. If we keep winning, others will have no choice but to take notice.

Hitmen77
11-02-2005, 04:41 PM
RSN: The White Sox had several players overachieve this year, and in order to seriously contend next season need to make some changes to their roster.

Which players do people think "overachieved"? None of the position players had career years.

As far as the pitching goes, Buehrle and Garcia pitched as I expected them to based on their careers to date. Garland - did he overachieve? I think there is a stronger argument that he finally broke through to what many feel has always been his potential. Contreras overachieve in 2nd half? Not sure, but again some would argue that this is what has been expected of him for a long time and he finally got his act together. McCarthy, Cotts, Jenks overachieve? All have been highly touted young talent.

So, who overachieved? Maybe Cliff Politte?

Iwritecode
11-02-2005, 04:44 PM
I agree that there's a heavy east-coast bias in there. It also sounded like it was from someone that didn't pay a whole lot of attention to the White Sox all year including the playoffs.

The White Sox had several players overachieve this year, and in order to seriously contend next season need to make some changes to their roster.

:?:

RSN: The umpires had a direct impact on the results of this year's postseason.

Yea, the Astros scored one more run than they should have. Other than that, there were no decisions by the umpires that directly affected the final score.

MarySwiss
11-02-2005, 05:19 PM
It's an interview done for a red sox board what do you expect? So lay off em and analyze the interviewee's responses instead of crapping on some cross team sharing.
So anway, DEVIN CLANCY at least got it right, not many people overachieved on the Sox. Jose and possibly some of the bullpen MAY have overachieved but as a whole this team underachieved across the board when it came to individual statistics. Garland you got to believe he "came into his own" or "matured" rather than "over achieving."

For the most part, daveeym, I agree with you. But the thing that always puzzles me is why so many fans of other teams who come here to post are always so surprised when WSI folks take umbrage. Maybe they missed the "totally biased, utterly petty, and completely unobjective" slogan?

And in the case of this poster, I found it interesting that he felt a need to deflect accusations of "east coast bias" by stating that he grew up in the Midwest. If he truly believed that the opinions--and occasional questions--he expressed during the interview did not reflect an east coast bias, seems to me he simply could have said that.

Were his comments phrased to elicit certain responses? Maybe, maybe not. But I think the two interviewees' responses were quite balanced. Good for them.

JorgeFabregas
11-02-2005, 05:35 PM
Yes, it's obvious the questions are just phrased to get a response. No one who is not employed by Rupert Murdoch thinks that Fox did a good job covering the World Series, and do you really think a Red Sox fan would get all excited about it being the Cubs' turn next year? I think they'd rather see their team win.

credefan24
11-02-2005, 05:40 PM
RSN: The umpires had a direct impact on the results of this year's postseason.

How many runs did the Umps score again? How many batters did they strike out?


East coast biased morons. Even after the Sox win, they can't give them credit.
To hell with em.

WestSox
11-02-2005, 05:59 PM
RSN: The umpires had a direct impact on the results of this year's postseason.

How many runs did the Umps score again? How many batters did they strike out?


East coast biased morons. Even after the Sox win, they can't give them credit.
To hell with em.

The media made a huge deal out of the "phantom strike three" call against A.J. This bad call merely put a runner on first with two outs. It didn't allow Ozuna to steal second and Crede to rip a meatball off the left-field wall.

Interestingly, they didn't make nearly as big a deal out of Lane's Game 3 home-run-that-wasn't. This DIRECTLY gave the 'Stros a run and was responsible for the game going into extra innings.

Yes, "to hell with them" indeed. :mad:

Unregistered
11-02-2005, 06:00 PM
What I don't get is this question and response:
RSN: The White Sox had several players overachieve this year, and in order to seriously contend next season need to make some changes to their roster.
STEVE DIMEGLIO: The White Sox had several players overachieve this year, and in order to seriously contend next season need to make some changes to their roster. What is this, the robotic rallying cry of rival teams?

As far as the team overachieving, you made that claim in a previous thread and were shot down with numbers - showing that very few players on the team did better than what was expected of them. Namely Garland, who some say is finally coming into his own after glimpses of how good he could be in previous years and Contreras, who everyone knows wasn't some kid off the farm - the guy was well known as the best pitcher in Cuba.

Podsednik hit .314 his rookie year, .244 last year and .290 this year. So it looks like last year was the anomaly, not this year. Politte? He held batters to a .208 avg in 2004. Pretty much picked up where he left off this year. Oh well, I guess if you say it enough times, it just "becomes" true.

maurice
11-02-2005, 06:09 PM
If you're referring to the phrasing of the questions/opinions, I was conducting an interview. The object is to elicit thoughtful reponses....

Why do you feel that transparent lies are the best way to elicit thoughtful reponses? To wit:
- "last year's Red Sox-version of Moneyball"
- "White Sox-version of small-ball"
- "The White Sox had several players overachieve this year"
- "in order to seriously contend next season [the Sox] need to make some changes to their roster"
- "The umpires had a direct impact on the results of this year's postseason."
- "The Red Sox and Yankees both losing in the first round was bad for baseball."
- No Red Cubs / Yanks = no "drama."
- "Fox actually did a great job of covering the playoffs and World Series."
- "Brad Lidge was the biggest story of the 2005 postseason."
- "itís the Cubsí turn in 2006."
- "Theo is replaceable and the Red Sox are still a World Series contender for the foreseeable future."
Most of these are obviously false. The others are more subjective but probably false.

You also imply that the playoff results were dictated by injuries, yet Chicago, Anaheim, Houston, and St. Louis all suffered injuries to All Star players and still advanced further than the Red Cubs and Yanks.

The Red Cubs got swept because they have no pitching. Get over it.

WestSox
11-02-2005, 06:13 PM
What I don't get is this question and response:
What is this, the robotic rallying cry of rival teams?

As far as the team overachieving, you made that claim in a previous thread and were shot down with numbers - showing that very few players on the team did better than what was expected of them.

I think there's at least some substance to that argument. Hermanson and Crede certainly did have career years. Dye had his best season in four years.

Then again, Rowand and Urbie both had significant offensive drop-offs from '04. A.J.'s increased power was offset by a drop in BA and OBP. So, it's not quite that simple.

JorgeFabregas
11-02-2005, 06:17 PM
Why do you feel that transparent lies are the best way to elicit thoughtful reponses?
Because if they are commonly held beliefs it gives the interview subjects the chance to argue against popular, but wrong ideas.

MarySwiss
11-02-2005, 06:19 PM
BTW, I especially liked this little gem:

RSN: Injuries, or lack thereof, had a direct impact on the results of this year's postseason.

And...? When DON'T injuries, or lack thereof, have an impact? In ANY sport?

maurice
11-02-2005, 06:22 PM
Hermanson and Crede certainly did have career years.

Well, Hermanson has a career year, but Crede posted .252 / .303 / .454 with 21 2B, 22 HR, 54 R, and 62 RBI. That line doesn't represent a career year. In fact, those numbers are pretty typical for him.

maurice
11-02-2005, 06:27 PM
Because if they are commonly held beliefs it gives the interview subjects the chance to argue against popular, but wrong ideas.

There are better ways to elicit thoughtful reponses than posting a series of lies that may or may not be commonly held. The traditional approach is called "asking questions."

Heck, the Fox lie concedes that it's not "commonly held," and no rational person would seriously contend that the Cubs will win the WS in 2006.

MISoxfan
11-02-2005, 06:33 PM
BTW, I especially liked this little gem:



And...? When DON'T injuries, or lack thereof, have an impact? In ANY sport?

When they work in Boston or New York's favor.

WestSox
11-02-2005, 06:35 PM
Well, Hermanson has a career year, but Crede posted .252 / .303 / .454 with 21 2B, 22 HR, 54 R, and 62 RBI. That line doesn't represent a career year. In fact, those numbers are pretty typical for him.

Doh! I'd forgotten that his '05 and '03 numbers are similar. Guess I'm still mad at him for hitting .239 last year with that godawful .299 OBP.

JorgeFabregas
11-02-2005, 06:45 PM
Heck, the Fox lie concedes that it's not "commonly held," and no rational person would seriously contend that the Cubs will win the WS in 2006.

I disagree. I think taking a commonly held assumption and negating it still lets the subjects give the same response--yes or no and the reasons why. "Did Fox do a good job on the World Series?" and "Did Fox do a bad job on the world series?" are essentially they same question.

Fenway
11-02-2005, 06:48 PM
Who said these two teams not in the second and third rounds was bad for baseball? Oh yeah, consider the source.

Leave your east coast bias at the door before posting some kind of article like this.


sadly the FOX ratings backs up that statement :(:


fans did miss an exciting Series (shrug)

doublem23
11-02-2005, 06:52 PM
RSN: The umpires had a direct impact on the results of this year's postseason.

Yes, Game 3 shouldn't have gone 14 innings because Houston was given a run they didn't earn on home run that didn't exist.

:whiner:

At least no one had the audacity to say Johnny Damon checked his swing on that 3-2 breaking ball from El Duque that ended the 6th.

Lip Man 1
11-02-2005, 06:53 PM
Cambridge:

With respect your reply to being called out on the question of 'the Yankees and Red Sox losing is bad for baseball' is bogus. I've done hundreds of interviews including many for this site with former players and members of the Chicago media. You don't phrase the question in such a way...you could have stated it this way and still gotten a good reply: "Because of the size of the New York and Boston telelvision markets, those teams losing in the first round could be perceived as bad for baseball..." and so forth.

It may have been unintentional but the way you phrased the question can be inferred as being biased towards the East Coast. As I wrote in the paper in Pocatello that I was doing a diary for, "this series proved that great baseball can be played by teams west of the Allegheny Mountains despite what ESPN may think..."

Sorry you were wrong on that point and my personal opinion is that baseball is BETTER off without the Yankees and Red Sox year after year after year. Casual fans get tired of the same teams, having new blood on a consistent basis creates excitement and energizes fan bases.

Lip

MRKARNO
11-02-2005, 06:54 PM
BTW, I especially liked this little gem:

And...? When DON'T injuries, or lack thereof, have an impact? In ANY sport?

Having a good training staff is pretty critical to running a team these days. Besides Frank Thomas and Magglio, we havent really lost many days to injury compared to most teams and I dont know that any training staff could have prevented their injuries.

MarySwiss
11-02-2005, 07:08 PM
sadly the FOX ratings backs up that statement :(:

fans did miss an exciting Series (shrug)

C'mon, Fenway, be honest! You know as well as I do that if the national media had done anywhere near the amount of hyping for this Series that they would have done for a Series that featured the Yanks or Red Sox, the ratings would have been a different ballgame (so to speak). And if the national--and local--media hadn't spent the whole damn summer dissing the Sox and questioning their right to contend instead of promoting them as the exciting team they were--and ARE--that would have positively affected the ratings as well. And no, I have no stats--a la BP--to back these statements up because there aren't any. But there is such a thing as common sense; if the media had come out of the gate in May--hell, even after the All-Star break--with positives instead of the "nah-nah-nah-nah-nah, you're gonna choke" crap we read, do you honestly believe that wouldn't have made a difference?

This is why I--and I guarantee other Sox fans--don't put much stock in what Fox, ESPN, or the ratings indicate. We consider the sources. And dismiss them. With they contempt they so richly deserve.

maurice
11-02-2005, 07:16 PM
I disagree. I think taking a commonly held assumption and negating it still lets the subjects give the same response.

I respect your opinion, but see Lip's post on this point. He has quite a bit of personal experience in this area.

Also note that Cambridge never labeled his assumptions as "incorrect" or even "commonly held." Like I said earlier, at least 2 of them are the opposite of the commonly held assumption. Given his Red Cub bias, it's probable that he thinks that many of the assumptions are true and excuse his team's poor performance.

Finally, notice that many of the answers actually agree with the false assumptions. Agreement is the typical response to this sort of "questioning," and it biases the answers. That's why detectives and lawyers are trained to ask leading questions.

MarySwiss
11-02-2005, 08:09 PM
I respect your opinion, but see Lip's post on this point. He has quite a bit of personal experience in this area.

Also note that Cambridge never labeled his assumptions as "incorrect" or even "commonly held." Like I said earlier, at least 2 of them are the opposite of the commonly held assumption. Given his Red Cub bias, it's probable that he thinks that many of the assumptions are true and excuse his team's poor performance.

Finally, notice that many of the answers actually agree with the false assumptions. Agreement is the typical response to this sort of "questioning," and it biases the answers. That's why detectives and lawyers are trained to ask leading questions.

Yep. Very true, Maurice. And that is why I, and Lip, and you, and others called his objectivity into question.

Realist
11-02-2005, 08:29 PM
Cambridge:

With respect your reply to being called out on the question of 'the Yankees and Red Sox losing is bad for baseball' is bogus. I've done hundreds of interviews including many for this site with former players and members of the Chicago media. You don't phrase the question in such a way...you could have stated it this way and still gotten a good reply: "Because of the size of the New York and Boston telelvision markets, those teams losing in the first round could be perceived as bad for baseball..." and so forth.

It may have been unintentional but the way you phrased the question can be inferred as being biased towards the East Coast. As I wrote in the paper in Pocatello that I was doing a diary for, "this series proved that great baseball can be played by teams west of the Allegheny Mountains despite what ESPN may think..."

Sorry you were wrong on that point and my personal opinion is that baseball is BETTER off without the Yankees and Red Sox year after year after year. Casual fans get tired of the same teams, having new blood on a consistent basis creates excitement and energizes fan bases.

Lip

This is true, but if the casual fan continues to get shelled with a barage of "YankeesRedSoxYankeesRedSoxYankeesRedSox" even after other teams have succeeded in going deep into the playoffs or even winning the World Series, the casual fans are going to keep sitting out the playoffs until the YankeesRedSox are again in the finals.

It's a shame when journalistic integrity is compromised in order to generate the almighty dollar, but when integrity is completely tossed out the window for the sake of ratings, it becomes more than a shame - It becomes disgusting. Not only that, I believe it crosses the line into the land of journalistic malpractice.

TornLabrum
11-02-2005, 08:40 PM
I think there's at least some substance to that argument. Hermanson and Crede certainly did have career years. Dye had his best season in four years.

Then again, Rowand and Urbie both had significant offensive drop-offs from '04. A.J.'s increased power was offset by a drop in BA and OBP. So, it's not quite that simple.

Exactly what baseball season were you watching? Hermanson went down early with a bad back and pitched rarely the last two months of the season. Crede struggled to reach .252.

WestSox
11-02-2005, 08:42 PM
Exactly what baseball season were you watching? Hermanson went down early with a bad back and pitched rarely the last two months of the season. Crede struggled to reach .252.

I was watching the season where Hermanson posted career highs in saves and ERA. (You're right about Crede, though.)

TornLabrum
11-02-2005, 08:43 PM
Having a good training staff is pretty critical to running a team these days. Besides Frank Thomas and Magglio, we havent really lost many days to injury compared to most teams and I dont know that any training staff could have prevented their injuries.

Let's see...there was Podsednik on the DL...Crede on the DL...and Hermanson going days at a time without pitching due to his bad back.

Cambridge
11-02-2005, 09:15 PM
I'll just make one more post here, because it's silly to have to explain or defend the thought process that went into conducting an interview.

When I set it up, I was hoping to get two people who would disgree more often than not -- I wanted a "yea" and "nay" type of dynamic, with arguments for each side of the questions. As it turns out, there was less of that than I hoped for, but the interviewees gave honest opinions and didn't see each others answers -- so it is what it is. As for how the questions/opinions were worded, I wanted them to be opinionated and debatable. Based on the posts in this thread, I succeeded. Whether or not I agree with them is irrelevant.

Lip Man 1
11-02-2005, 09:43 PM
Cambridge:

Again with respect a good interviewer does not ask questions in such a way that infers bias, even if none exist. Your stating that 'the Yankees and Red Sox losing is bad for baseball,' is your opinion. It's fine to have your opinion come into play in an interview but it should be noted in the question, i.e. "In my opinion the Yankees and Red Sox losing is bad for baseball..." yadda, yadda, yadda...

That way your position is clear in your question and no one should have any beefs. The way the question is stated assumes a 'fact.' That 'fact' is not necessarily correct is it? There are millions of fans who think both the Yankees and Red Sox losing is the greatest thing to happen to baseball since the split finger fastball and wants that losing to continue.

Like I said express your opinion in a question but make it clear that it's your opinion... don't assume it's factual.
Lip

MarySwiss
11-02-2005, 09:47 PM
I'll just make one more post here, because it's silly to have to explain or defend the thought process that went into conducting an interview. When I set it up, I was hoping to get two people who would disgree more often than not -- I wanted a "yea" and "nay" type of dynamic, with arguments for each side of the questions. As it turns out, there was less of that than I hoped for, but the interviewees gave honest opinions and didn't see each others answers -- so it is what it is. As for how the questions/opinions were worded, I wanted them to be opinionated and debatable. Based on the posts in this thread, I succeeded. Whether or not I agree with them is irrelevant.
I am SO TIRED of the whole "it is what it is" thing.

Cambridge, I don't know you, and you well may be a nice person, but before you dislocate your arm from patting yourself on the back over your interview, here are a few thoughts.

it's silly to have to explain or defend the thought process that went into conducting an interview.
Excuse me, but when you conduct an interview for a Red Sox Web site, pardon us all to hell if we question your thought processes. Especially if you post the interview on a White Sox fan site.

As for how the questions/opinions were worded, I wanted them to be opinionated and debatable. Based on the posts in this thread, I succeeded. Whether or not I agree with them is irrelevant

Some of the posters on this thread expressed the opinion that your questions were slanted to elicit a biased response. And some also would assert that more objectively worded questions/opinions might well have resulted in responses that were also "opinionated and debatable," but untainted by the suspicion of bias. IMO, they are right.

But, in any event, thanks for sharing your interview with us.

Hitmen77
11-02-2005, 09:51 PM
sadly the FOX ratings backs up that statement :(:


fans did miss an exciting Series (shrug)

So, what your saying is that you think what's good for baseball should be determined by FOX ratings? :?:

I don't believe that having the same two teams in it every year while interest in the sport fades in "the rest of the country" is better for baseball.

brewcrew/chisox
11-02-2005, 10:17 PM
Personally, I don't think the East Coast bias has as much effect on ratings and the casual fan's interest in Playoff Baseball as some people here contend. I can point to one of the lowest rated World Series in history, the one between the Yankees and the Mets, a series that was hyped beyond comprension, as proof of this fact.

IMO, hoopla is overrated, with probably the same kind of impact on decreasing interest as the fact that they no longer play games during the day on Sat and Sun (who, other than Sox fans and diehard baseball fans was up until 1:30am to watch the 14 inning game against the Stros?). It has an effect, but how much I don't know.

Instead, I'd point to drama being the strongest factor, and the fact that "it's a good series" with each game being close, and sadly for the Sox, not one team dominating the series. Yes, the playoff games with the Sox were close, but the Sox won almost all of them(the one that I actually got to attend being the only exception :angry: .) I think that if the Sox had lost a few of those close ones (and I'm glad they didn't) the ratings would have been greater.

I watched the Yankees and RedSox playoffs during 2003 and 2004 because they were damn good series. I looked forward to watching them because it seemed as if there was always something new, an Arron Boone homerun, a big Papi single to win the game; a fight where a pitcher attacked a coach. I watched them, and enjoyed the general ebb and flow, the building drama of the series. Not only that, but there was some great baseball being played as well. In addition, they both went all 7 games...people (Me too) love that.

I watched the Sox playoffs with the same intensity because the Sox are a team I root for, but sadly, I could see how the causal fan stayed away as the playoffs progressed. The ratings decreased nationally as the Sox won each game. It doesn't decrease the importance of the Sox being World champs, but instead may be reflection of what people like in their baseball.

Lastly, I agree to and extent with Lip in the sense that seeing the same two teams in the playoffs can be bad for baseball and bad for ratings as well. No one wants to see the same guys up there slugging it out especially if your team never has a chance each year (See the Royals, the Pirates and my beloved Brewers). However, I have faith in the game too, and I think that if you have a good product on the field, despite who is playing, people are going to watch.

samram
11-02-2005, 10:21 PM
This is true, but if the casual fan continues to get shelled with a barage of "YankeesRedSoxYankeesRedSoxYankeesRedSox" even after other teams have succeeded in going deep into the playoffs or even winning the World Series, the casual fans are going to keep sitting out the playoffs until the YankeesRedSox are again in the finals.

It's a shame when journalistic integrity is compromised in order to generate the almighty dollar, but when integrity is completely tossed out the window for the sake of ratings, it becomes more than a shame - It becomes disgusting. Not only that, I believe it crosses the line into the land of journalistic malpractice.

Well, I don't know if the question is one of journalistic integrity as one of journalistic and broadcast stupidity on Fox's part. By putting so much focus on the Red Sox and Yankees, they pulled the broadcast equivalent of putting all their eggs in one basket, and basically talked people out of watching their programming. Way to go, Fox.

As for Cambridge's interview, his biggest mistake seems to be his assumption that our baseball worldview is similar to his is. Furthermore, he seems perplexed that we don't share his baseball worldview. I don't understand the "Sox players overachieving" idea at all. In my mind, overachieving is when a player produces results not only better than his career numbers would suggest, but also better than his talent would suggest he can produce. I'm not sure which Sox player had a season matching that description.

Tragg
11-02-2005, 11:01 PM
sadly the FOX ratings backs up that statement :(:


fans did miss an exciting Series (shrug)

And it's largely self-inflicted. It was they, with a big assist from ESPN, who hyped Boston/NY to no end. It was incessant. ESPN was running 2 commmercials an hour for boston/ny last march. Well, they created the frankenstein, they can live with it.

As an aside, ESPN has always hyped their locals to no end, whether it be the bosox or u conn athletics (a complete creation of ESPN).

house215
11-02-2005, 11:58 PM
That interview was a waste of my time.

asindc
11-03-2005, 10:17 AM
And it's largely self-inflicted. It was they, with a big assist from ESPN, who hyped Boston/NY to no end. It was incessant. ESPN was running 2 commmercials an hour for boston/ny last march. Well, they created the frankenstein, they can live with it.

As an aside, ESPN has always hyped their locals to no end, whether it be the bosox or u conn athletics (a complete creation of ESPN).

ESPN was founded initially by a UConn alum who wanted a network to focus more on UConn athletics. Only after it became clear that it had viability as a national sports network did they work to establish it as such. The East Coast bias, therefore, is inherent in its foundation, to the point where much of it is probably unconscious on their part.

I think MLB deserves much of the blame here for allowing its broadcast partners to market its product in such a lopsided manner. There is no way that an Astros/Sox series, with the 3rd and 4th largest media markets, with the Sox chasing its first title since 1917 the year after Boston won its first since 1918, with the Astros in its very first series, and with Clemens leading his hometown in to the series, to name a few stories of interest, should get such low ratings.

The Sox and Astros did their jobs in playing great baseball during the playoffs. This falls squarely at the feet of MLB and its broadcast partners.

samram
11-03-2005, 10:24 AM
I think MLB deserves much of the blame here for allowing its broadcast partners to market its product in such a lopsided manner.

Fox pays quite a bit of money for the broadcast rights. I doubt they want MLB telling them how to manage their investment. MLB really doesn't have a lot of control until the rights deal is up for negotiation again.

WestSox
11-03-2005, 10:25 AM
I think MLB deserves much of the blame here for allowing its broadcast partners to market its product in such a lopsided manner. There is no way that an Astros/Sox series, with the 3rd and 4th largest media markets


I don't think that the Astros are the 4th-largest media market. I remember reading somewhere that they're like 6th or 8th. From what I've observed down here, baseball doesn't seem to be nearly as popular as it is in Chicago. Like Florida, Texas is definitely a football-first state.

My feeling is that the people on the coasts just didn't care after their teams got spanked in the playoffs.

asindc
11-03-2005, 10:30 AM
I don't think that the Astros are the 4th-largest media market. I remember reading somewhere that they're like 6th or 8th. From what I've observed down here, baseball doesn't seem to be nearly as popular as it is in Chicago. Like Florida, Texas is definitely a football-first state.

My feeling is that the people on the coasts just didn't care after their teams got spanked in the playoffs.

I had read somewhere that Houston was 4th. If not, I stand corrected, and in any case my point stands, as 2 top 10 media markets were in the Series, as opposed to when Fla. played Cleveland, for instance.

WestSox
11-03-2005, 10:33 AM
I had read somewhere that Houston was 4th. If not, I stand corrected, and in any case my point stands, as 2 top 10 media markets were in the Series, as opposed to when Fla. played Cleveland, for instance.

Perhaps the X-factor in this one was all of the Cubs fans who refused to tune in to watch the Sox sweep? :roflmao:

I hope that the national media continues to ignore us and is forced to cover us again next October.

Fenway
11-03-2005, 12:09 PM
MLB is going to take a hit because of these ratings. The FOX contract is up for renewal and FOX lost money the last 2 years because of sweeps. They need 6 or 7 game series to justify the expense.

IlliniSox4Life
11-03-2005, 01:04 PM
I don't think that the Astros are the 4th-largest media market. I remember reading somewhere that they're like 6th or 8th. From what I've observed down here, baseball doesn't seem to be nearly as popular as it is in Chicago. Like Florida, Texas is definitely a football-first state.

My feeling is that the people on the coasts just didn't care after their teams got spanked in the playoffs.

Rank of cities in the U.S. by population:
# City Population
1. New York 8,168,388
2. Los Angeles 3,845,541
3. Chicago 2,862,244
4. Houston 2,012,626


Whether or not the suburbs and surrounding area of other cities are larger than Houston and would put them higher, I don't know. And whether smaller population cities have more baseball fans, I don't know either, so they might not have 2 of the 4 biggest "baseball markets", but regardless, Fox had teams from 2 of the 4 largest cities in the U.S. and somehow managed as poor ratings as they did.

Notice that Chicago had to also play Los Angeles (2nd largest market), and Boston (media darlings). I'm sure if they would've at least talked about the Sox's good sides instead of how great Boston is during their series, and how bad the umps were during the LAA series, they could've picked up some more fans to at least take interest in the future rounds.

tacosalbarojas
11-03-2005, 01:43 PM
So, who overachieved? Maybe Cliff Politte?Nah, but Chris Widger probably did.

longshot7
11-03-2005, 02:05 PM
Rank of cities in the U.S. by population:
# City Population
1. New York 8,168,388
2. Los Angeles 3,845,541
3. Chicago 2,862,244
4. Houston 2,012,626


Whether or not the suburbs and surrounding area of other cities are larger than Houston and would put them higher, I don't know. And whether smaller population cities have more baseball fans, I don't know either, so they might not have 2 of the 4 biggest "baseball markets", but regardless, Fox had teams from 2 of the 4 largest cities in the U.S. and somehow managed as poor ratings as they did.

Notice that Chicago had to also play Los Angeles (2nd largest market), and Boston (media darlings). I'm sure if they would've at least talked about the Sox's good sides instead of how great Boston is during their series, and how bad the umps were during the LAA series, they could've picked up some more fans to at least take interest in the future rounds.

Yes, the Astros are 4th technically in population (I imagine it doesn't take into account the suburbs - SF is like 8th), but they're the 10th largest media market in the US. Not exactly what you call "major market."

Good points about Boston and LA tho.

WestSox
11-03-2005, 02:09 PM
Yes, the Astros are 4th technically in population (I imagine it doesn't take into account the suburbs - SF is like 8th), but they're the 10th largest media market in the US. Not exactly what you call "major market."

Good points about Boston and LA tho.

Ah, even lower than I thought.

Media market size does not correlate well with city size. I imagine that Boston is a larger media market than Houston because the market encompasses almost all of densely-populated New England. Hell, even Baltimore is considered a major media market.

SoxFan76
11-03-2005, 02:24 PM
MarySwiss, you're quickly becoming one of my favorite posters due to this thread.

I'm just going to agree with what most have been saying. Career years? I don't know about that. Outside of Hermanson...nobody really had a "career year".

Ok, so it's the umpires fault the Sox swept? Yeah, like that home run that really wasn't a home run. We didn't see that covered on ESPN for hours upon hours. The Sox capitazlied on EVERY suspicious call the umpires made. Oh man, I'm getting fired up now. Stupid language filters...

Screw the Yankees and Red Sox. I hate them more and more every day. Especially the east coast media and their holier than thou attitude. I'm getting really pissed now.

You know why Fox had such low ratings? Blame FOX AND ESPN!!!! You have to ADVERTISE your product for there to be ANY sort of interest! Instead, they continually IGNORE baseball's best team ALL YEAR. AHHHHHHHHHHH

But no, it's the White Sox and Astros fault the ratings were so low. I mean who cares about the White Sox and Astros? It was only the Astros first world series appearance EVER and the White Sox only won their first championship in 88 mother flippin YEARS! You can't market that to the masses? I hope Fox loses baseball. They don't deserve it. Plus, I hope to God nobody has to hear Joe Buck or Tim McCarver announce another meaningful game AGAIN.

**** fox
**** espn
**** the east coast
**** the mediots

MarySwiss
11-03-2005, 03:18 PM
MarySwiss, you're quickly becoming one of my favorite posters due to this thread.



Awwww, shucks! Thanks, SoxFan76! :redface:

GoSox2K3
11-03-2005, 05:07 PM
If you're referring to the phrasing of the questions/opinions, I was conducting an interview. The object is to elicit thoughtful reponses, and I feel both Clancy and DiMeglio provided exactly that. I also thought they gave the White Sox due credit for the most part. But wait, they're national, so they must be anti-White Sox. I forgot.

As for my east coast bias, I grew up in the midwest.

Paranoid Sox Fans Cry 'East Coast Bias' After Team Rides Overachieving Players and Bad Ump Calls to World Series Win!
- Team slips to #2 in AL Central in latest ESPN ranking: Proof that team got lucky in WS win.
- Red Sox and Yankees hope to win '06 pennant and save baseball from utter destruction.


Oh, I'm sorry, i'm in my "predict tomorrow's headline" mode. My bad.:redface:

MISoxfan
11-03-2005, 05:17 PM
Wasn't last years Series the 5th lowest ever (6th now)?

Cambridge
11-03-2005, 05:51 PM
Oh, I'm sorry, i'm in my "predict tomorrow's headline" mode. My bad.:redface:

Never mind. Not worth my time.

MarySwiss
11-03-2005, 07:36 PM
Never mind. Not worth my time.

Amazing, innit? I mean, how some people insist on having the last word. Or is it his/her last word?

PLACE YOUR BETS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!

Cambridge
11-04-2005, 10:05 AM
As the interviewer, my opinions don't matter. But as many people here feel the "opinions" that were being responded to were my own, this is what they actually are. FWIW:

RSN: As MLB general managers often follow trends, or even fads, last year's Red Sox-version of Moneyball is out, and this year's White Sox-version of small-ball is in.


Devin Clancy hit the nail on the head when he said: ďÖif there is a trend, itís to try to be well-rounded.Ē Ditto the label ďsmart ball.Ē The Moneyball theory is generally described as obtaining undervalued players and minimizing risk where it comes to giving up outs. By extension, the latter means less bunting and running. Weíve already seen a trend away from that in the American League. Will teams run and bunt more based on the White Sox success? My guess is that they will, but not to a large extent.

RSN: The White Sox had several players overachieve this year, and in order to seriously contend next season need to make some changes to their roster.



Again Iíll agree with something Devin Clancy said: ďIím not sure all that many players overachieved for 162 games.Ē As I mentioned in a different thread, a few did. In my opinion they were Contreras, Hermanson, Politte, and to a smaller extent Everett. What is most important is that while there werenít many career years, there also werenít many disappointing ones. Kenny Williams put together a solid team, and it did what he felt it should. As for whether changes need to be made to repeat next year, I think all defending champions need to tweak to some extent. Do the Sox need to change much? No.



RSN: The umpires had a direct impact on the results of this year's postseason.



More than they should have, but it was perception more than cause and effect. Missing a home run and being totally confused on a third strike (non) call were embarrassing. Did any one call decide who won the WS? Of course not. But calls do change momentum and effect players psychologically. They also influence how fans view what happened. From a perception standpoint, the missed home run call is the BEST thing that could have happened for White Sox fans. It took the sting off the "The White Sox are getting lucky" accusations that Fox was pushing in order to stir controversy.



RSN: Injuries, or lack thereof, had a direct impact on the results of this year's postseason.



Unquestionably. They almost always do in the postseason, to some extent. In my opinion, the Cardinals are in the World Series if theyíre healthy. And once Bartolo Colon, a 20-game winner, went down, so did the Angelís chances. The Red Sox were obviously hurt by having an injured Schilling and no Foulke, but that became a moot point in the ALDS -- Schillingís turn in the rotation never came, and there were no games for Foulke to save.



RSN: The Red Sox and Yankees both losing in the first round was bad for baseball; where is the drama and national interest without them?



Of course not. The networks didnít like it, and there were fewer WS viewers nationwide, but most true baseball fans enjoyed seeing other teams. Of course Iíd have liked to have seen the Red Sox in the World Series, but it was GOOD for baseball, as a whole, to see new blood.



RSN: Why are so many people complaining? Fox actually did a great job of covering the playoffs and World Series.



Fox is a joke. Period.



RSN: The White Sox first championship since 1917 aside, Brad Lidge was the biggest story of the 2005 postseason.



Steve DiMegglio said that Boston and NY losing in the first round was bigger. Maybe thatís true. But if Lidgeís career takes a downturn (which I donít expect), I think it becomes the bigger story.



RSN: Now that the Red Sox and White Sox have won the World Series in back-to-back seasons, itís the Cubsí turn in 2006.



Do I think it would be good for baseball? Sure; it would be a huge story and attract a lot of attention to the game. Do I expect it? No.

oeo
11-04-2005, 11:03 AM
Missing a home run and being totally confused on a third strike (non) call were embarrassing.

I'm with AJ on this one, I don't care what anyone says, the ball hit the ground. It obviously changes directions from one frame to the next. AJ was safe. And what are the chances that both AJ and Eddings hear the same sound with as loud as the crowd is. I just don't believe what the media is trying to drive into our heads.

lostletters
11-04-2005, 11:40 AM
Overachieve...god these east coasts mediots are a joke. There was not a single player overachieving on the club. Garland and JC were FINALLY living up to the potential they have both shown flashes of in the past. Garcia and MB, were having average years, these guys have ALWAYS been aces.
As far as the rest of the lineup, most of them did about on par, or even below what they normally have done in thier careers.
AJ in fact had a bad year, the guy normally has a much higher batting average. It was a slightly below average year for Rowand, and a par year for Crede and PK. Crazy Carl was not overachieving at all, in fact he has done much better in the past.

So that leaves...Dye, who I think took advantage of the Cell's low fences and his ability to hit the opposite way. His 31 home run year is because the Cell is a hitters park, especially for line drive guys like Dye. Part of the reason Dye did so well is because he was well suited for the park he was playing in half the year.

So how did the players on this team overachieve? It is just making excuses. It is a team made of below the radar guys, but it is below the radar guys that play hard and do thier job.

Also I think a big reason why the White Sox won was because of Ozzie. A charismatic manager is very rare in this day and age of Dusty Bakers and Joe Torres. The laid back manager that sits on his butt whether his team wins or loses and trusts veteren players and does not risk using rookies or bench players.

Ozzie is guy that is rare because he is charismatic and he does believe every player can contribute to a win at some point in the game. In the age of superstars, he wants none of it. He actually trusts his young players as much as his veterans, if they show talent and drive to win. I think the biggest element of this white sox team is the one that is hardest to replicate.

Additionally, I do not think the personality meshing that KW does cannot be done easily either.

This is a baseball team created around solid players and intangibles, I am not sure that can be replicated. This is a team that has very little to do with statistics outside of pitching, and everything to do with personality.

Iwritecode
11-04-2005, 11:41 AM
RSN: Why are so many people complaining? Fox actually did a great job of covering the playoffs and World Series.



Fox is a joke. Period.


This one really sticks out IMO.

If your opinion doesn't matter and is, in fact the exact opposite of what you state, why do you word it the way you do? I think the biggest problem people have is that you're not actual asking questions. You're making statements (some obviously biased one way or another) and letting the interviewees respond to them.

As Lip has pointed out you could have done a much better job wording your "questions".

"A lot of people have complained about the job Fox did covering the playoffs. What did you think of it?"

That sounds a lot better than making an opinionated statement...

maurice
11-04-2005, 04:48 PM
As MLB general managers often follow trends, or even fads, last year's Red Sox-version of Moneyball is out, and this year's White Sox-version of small-ball is in.

You're completely missing the point, as usual. The actual problem with this statement is that the Red Cubs didn't win because of "Moneyball" and the Sox didn't win because of "small ball." The Red Cubs didn't focus on undervalued players to compensate for a small payroll (see Oakland A's); they just outspent the competition for key players like Schilling, Foulke, and Ramirez. Meanwhile, the Sox hit 200 HR in the regular season and many more in the playoffs. Other teams run and bunt much more successfully than the Sox. Unless the opposing catcher sucks defensively (like Varitek), the only Sox player likely to run is Podsednik, and his injury limited his ability to run for at least a month. Small-ball-style offense was a very small part of the Sox winning season. If a MLB GM is looking for something to immitate, he should consider the Sox extremely deep pitching staff.

Iíll agree with something Devin Clancy said: ďIím not sure all that many players overachieved for 162 games.Ē As I mentioned in a different thread, a few did. In my opinion they were Contreras, Hermanson, Politte, and to a smaller extent Everett.

Hermanson and Pollite overachieved. Everett, OTOH, batted .251. That was his worst AVE since 1997. He was our least valuable everyday player, and the most likely to be replaced in 2006. The Sox already declined his option.

Two overachieving players probably is below average for a MLB team. By the end of the year, both "overachievers" were relatively insignificant middle relievers (as opposed to starting pitchers or cleanup hitters).

What is most important is that while there werenít many career years, there also werenít many disappointing ones.

Just Everett, Thomas, Rowand, Uribe, Pierzynski, Davis, Perez, Gload, Hernandez, Marte, and Adkins.

The umpires had a direct impact on the results of this year's postseason.
More than they should have, but it was perception more than cause and effect. Missing a home run and being totally confused on a third strike (non) call were embarrassing.

The non-HR call had no "direct impact on the results of this year's postseason," because the Sox won the game anyway. The only person "confused" on the dropped third strike call was Josh Paul. Everybody else on the field was wondering why he never tagged AJ on the ass like every other MLB catcher would have done in that situation. Paul's error and the media coverage of the call were "embarrassing."

From a perception standpoint, the missed home run call is the BEST thing that could have happened for White Sox fans. It took the sting off the "The White Sox are getting lucky" accusations

*****! You know what took the sting off of the "lucky" accusations? The fact that the Sox lost one game in an approx. 30-day period, facing the best teams in MLB. Such an amazing hot streak cannot be caused by "luck." That's all just sour grapes from the teams that weren't good enough and media members who hate the Sox.

Injuries, or lack thereof, had a direct impact on the results of this year's postseason.
Unquestionably

BS. Like I already explained, every relevant team had significant injuries. Heck, the two teams that made the WS suffered serious injuries to Hall of Fame, middle-of-the-lineup players. A good GM plans for this by compiling a deep team.

Brad Lidge was the biggest story of the 2005 postseason. . . . [I]f Lidgeís career takes a downturn (which I donít expect), I think it becomes the bigger story.

BS. It won't even be the biggest story out of Houston. Lidge has pitched well for about 2 years. The Astros won their first pennant ever.

Cambridge
11-04-2005, 06:07 PM
Maurice, I think it's fair to say that if I claimed the White Sox won the World Series and you should be awarded a million dollars, you'd find fault with both.

BTW: The home plate umpire wasn't confused on the Paul/Pierzynski play? You've gotta be kidding on that one.

Also, how did Carl Everett underachieve? He hit 16 more home runs and had 52 more RBI than last year.

MarySwiss
11-04-2005, 06:07 PM
You're completely missing the point, as usual. The actual problem with this statement is that the Red Cubs didn't win because of "Moneyball" and the Sox didn't win because of "small ball." The Red Cubs didn't focus on undervalued players to compensate for a small payroll (see Oakland A's); they just outspent the competition for key players like Schilling, Foulke, and Ramirez. Meanwhile, the Sox hit 200 HR in the regular season and many more in the playoffs. Other teams run and bunt much more successfully than the Sox. Unless the opposing catcher sucks defensively (like Varitek), the only Sox player likely to run is Podsednik, and his injury limited his ability to run for at least a month. Small-ball-style offense was a very small part of the Sox winning season. If a MLB GM is looking for something to immitate, he should consider the Sox extremely deep pitching staff.

Hermanson and Pollite overachieved. Everett, OTOH, batted .251. That was his worst AVE since 1997. He was our least valuable everyday player, and the most likely to be replaced in 2006. The Sox already declined his option.

Two overachieving players probably is below average for a MLB team. By the end of the year, both "overachievers" were relatively insignificant middle relievers (as opposed to starting pitchers or cleanup hitters).

Just Everett, Thomas, Rowand, Uribe, Pierzynski, Davis, Perez, Gload, Hernandez, Marte, and Adkins.

The non-HR call had no "direct impact on the results of this year's postseason," because the Sox won the game anyway. The only person "confused" on the dropped third strike call was Josh Paul. Everybody else on the field was wondering why he never tagged AJ on the ass like every other MLB catcher would have done in that situation. Paul's error and the media coverage of the call were "embarrassing."

*****! You know what took the sting off of the "lucky" accusations? The fact that the Sox lost one game in an approx. 30-day period, facing the best teams in MLB. Such an amazing hot streak cannot be caused by "luck." That's all just sour grapes from the teams that weren't good enough and media members who hate the Sox.

BS. Like I already explained, every relevant team had significant injuries. Heck, the two teams that made the WS suffered serious injuries to Hall of Fame, middle-of-the-lineup players. A good GM plans for this by compiling a deep team.

BS. It won't even be the biggest story out of Houston. Lidge has pitched well for about 2 years. The Astros won their first pennant ever.

Maurice, this was masterful! I'd take my White Sox World Series lockerroom cap off to you...if I had one! :angry:

But I think you're preaching to the choir. True Sox fans know what you're saying is true. And the original poster--along with all the other naysayers--will never admit it.

maurice
11-04-2005, 06:25 PM
Maurice, I think it's fair to say that if I claimed the White Sox won the World Series and you should be awarded a million dollars, you'd find fault with both.

In other words, you can't contradict what I've written.

BTW: The home plate umpire wasn't confused on the Paul/Pierzynski play? You've gotta be kidding on that one.

Paul's the only person on the field who didn't know what was happening. The ump did exactly the same thing on every strike call throughout the game and never called AJ out.

Also, how did Carl Everett underachieve? He hit 16 more home runs and had 52 more RBI than last year.

Reading is a skill:
Everett [] batted .251. That was his worst AVE since 1997.
Everett only had 281 ABs in 2004, because he was injured. The last time he played a full season (the previous year), he made the All Star team, hit 28 HR, and drove in 92 runs. I know that Red Cub fans are required to claim that Everett sucks, but that's usually not the case.