For posterity's sake (since this has already been discussed in the game wrap), here are our Rockies...

For posterity's sake (since this has already been discussed in the game wrap), here are our Rockies gracing the top story on ESPN.com's MLB section.

Note that even though the Rockies have won 17 of 18 ballgames and are 0.5 games out of the wild card, the team is still considered to be out of the playoff race. Thank you Eastern SPorts Network for that insightful analysis - if you don't mind, we're going to go back to playing baseball now, mmk?

over 2 years ago oo_nrb 12 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

To be fair, it was one guy's opinion that they are out of the race.

It wasn’t an ESPN-wide proclamation.

by holly96 on Jun 23, 2009 1:31 AM MDT reply actions

To be fair

That makes it an ESPN-wide proclamation. The only guy on that network who actually knows the whole league is Steve Phillips, and they went and moved him to the broadcast booth from the desk. He may have sucked as a GM, but he’s a very good desk analyst. MLB Network is way better than ESPN. Tune in today at 4:00 PM to see Clint Hurdle on there.

"Horton is win."
--Horvil Tiki

by wtnelson on Jun 23, 2009 11:57 AM MDT up reply actions

I'm sorry, no it doesn't.

ESPN has analysts that share their opinions. That’s their job. Oftentimes they disagree with each other, thus no one of them is speaking for the entire network. You can disagree with any analyst’s opinion, or think they’re a bad analyst, that’s fine, but that’s it.

And I would love to tune in to MLB Network, but I don’t get it. And in general, while ESPN is far from perfect, I think fan/blog bashing blows it way out of proportion a lot of times, especially when it comes to coverage of their favorite team.

Also, there other MLB guys there that I quite like.

by holly96 on Jun 23, 2009 12:23 PM MDT up reply actions

I don't think you quite understand the way it works over there

I’m a fan of ESPN, generally, but the way that they pander to the Red Sox and Yankees, and a little bit less to the Cubs and Dodgers, absolutely drives me nuts.

Something like this, though, I can’t imagine is just one guy’s opinion over there. The way that they do things is too “computerized”. When they go on TV and say something, they make sure that they know exactly what will be said well in advance of its actually being said. That is why on programs such as “NFL Live”, when the analysts have a sort of “Point/Counter-Point” segment, it doesn’t seem genuine, and it never gets heated. Basically, they whole thing is scripted by the powers that be. It’s not just one guy’s opinion.

I can only assume that the columns that are written on ESPN.com are done so in a similar vein as the TV stuff, which is why I feel that, yes, this is a network-wide opinion. I also think that it’s an excuse for them to not be showing Rockies highlights earlier than the bottom of the show or the end of the show. If they pass it off as, “Well, this is just a ‘little run’, and it’s nothing more than a bad team playing good ball for a few days,” then that’s their way of saying that there’s no reason to show the Rockies highlights, in my opinion.

"Horton is win."
--Horvil Tiki

by wtnelson on Jun 23, 2009 6:09 PM MDT up reply actions

I'm not saying Kruk is the only one with that opinion.

But there is no way every single baseball person there feels the exact same way. They didn’t take a poll and then assign Kruk to be the one to tout the company line.

On tv, yes, most stuff is scripted in advance in large part to be able to use teleprompters. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t off-the-cuff stuff. There frequently is. And it also doesn’t mean that something read off of a teleprompter wasn’t originally written by the person reading it. Even a genuinely held opinion is going to come off rehearsed if it was prepared ahead of time.

And I don’t think I agree with you on the assertion that every column is a network-wide opinion. Otherwise no columns would have conflicting opinions, but they do. Most of those ESPN.com guys have blogs and post frequently. No way is all that stuff merely them voicing whatever the higher-ups want them to say.

As for coverage, they’re always going to spend more time on large-market teams. That’s just the way it is. They’re a business, not a public service.

And unless you work there, I doubt you know exactly how things work, either.

by holly96 on Jun 24, 2009 12:54 AM MDT up reply actions

No, I don't work there

However, on something like this, it comes off as disingenuous and an excuse by the network to not show a team that is doing good things, which is why I believe that in this case, it was a network-held “opinion”, whether anybody believed it or not.

Perhaps I came off in the wrong way with my original statement. In many cases, especially cases like this, columns that are written that are flat-out wrong seem to come from the top. Why would they have a guy like Kruk write the column? Kurkjian could have written it. Or even Rick Reilly. Somebody that made a living as a writer, focusing on the entire league, not just one team.

I do disagree somewhat on one thing – TV is certainly a public service. TV companies are obviously businesses, but they are businesses that perform a public service (albeit a paid one in the case of cable networks). I understand why the show teams from larger media markets, but I will never believe that so-called “smaller markets” aren’t newsworthy. Look at the San Antonio Spurs in the NBA. Every breath that they take is newsworthy, yet San Antonio is hardly a large market. It’s a double-standard.

I’m not convinced that even Kruk believes what he wrote. It comes across to me as a disingenuous excuse for the network’s actions that comes from the top.

"Horton is win."
--Horvil Tiki

by wtnelson on Jun 24, 2009 6:17 PM MDT up reply actions

Kruk wrote the column because it was specifically a BBTN tie-in

and he is one of the main BBTN personalities. I’m sure they trade-off who writes those among the main BBTN guys.

And honestly, the Spurs don’t get nearly as much coverage as the Lakers or the Celtics or even the Knicks, who are terrible. Only when they go far in the playoffs do they get a ton of coverage. Smaller markets may be newsworthy, but they’re never going to get the amount of coverage as large markets, unless they have some start that transcends their market (like Lebron in Cleveland), because, ultimately, they just don’t bring in the eyeballs like the other markets.

by holly96 on Jun 25, 2009 11:48 AM MDT up reply actions