ESPN is Awful [Archive] - Baseball Fever

KCGHOST

07-27-2007, 01:54 PM

So I settle in last night to watch BBTN figuring I will get to see lots of the Royals beating the Yankees after being routed in the first three games. Well they showed lots of replays from the game, but instead of showing the big hits of the Royals, they decided it would be better to show Yankees making routine outs. You got to see all four of Arod's AB's (two easy outs, a walk, and a HBP).

All we got to see from a Royal's offensive perspective was Gordon's HR for the final run.

Well, they never claimed to be fair and balanced.

oaklandman666

07-27-2007, 02:35 PM

If you aern't the Yanks, Mets, Cards, or Sox, you don't get anything from them. I'm an A's fan, and I have to watch the game on Mlb.tv now b/c the shows on espn (BBTN and SC) don't show much.

sharrock

07-27-2007, 03:59 PM

I'm a Red Sox fan so I do get to see a bunch of highlights on ESPN. But I'm also a baseball fan and have found that BBTN stopped really covering the games years ago. Now its about star players and fantasy-baseball type info. They give a token nod to real baseball with Web Gems, but even that is lousy.

ESPN is more about entertainment now than it used to be. None of us should be surprised, its the way they have been moving for twenty years... but it is a shame because they have forced out any competitors.

I'd be even more peaved if I were a Royals fan.

PlayJay

07-27-2007, 05:34 PM

ESPN, for me, has become unwatchable. Baseball coverage is not up to the standards that would have me as a regular viewer.

Much of their programming is utterly ridiculous. The Sportscenter segment "Who's Now" has got to be, without a doubt, the most airheaded, idiotic $#@! I have ever seen, in my twenty five plus years of viewing the network. Much of the rest isn't much less on the Asinine scale.

I now get my sports news on the web. At least there, I'm not hassled by glib commentators and omelet-brained ex-pro athletes who failed in selling cars or insurance.

Atlanta Braves Freak

07-28-2007, 12:16 AM

No disrespect to the Royals or the loyal fans, but that's kind of what everbody expects. Just the important hits, ESPN wants to show what gets ratings. The D'Backs beat the Braves tonight and all they showed was the game winning HR by Tony Clark, hell two of the best teams in the NL don't even get any highlights. It just hasn't been baseball where ESPN has been slacking off, just look at the programming they show. Rock, Paper Scissors Championship?? Poker Tournaments?? WTF?!

DoubleX

07-28-2007, 08:34 PM

Much of their programming is utterly ridiculous. The Sportscenter segment "Who's Now" has got to be, without a doubt, the most airheaded, idiotic $#@! I have ever seen, in my twenty five plus years of viewing the network. Much of the rest isn't much less on the Asinine scale.

I completely agree with this. The Who's Now thing was the final straw for me and I've stopped watching ESPN as a result. ESPN is largely now just self-indulgent tripe and has become the MTV of sports. Would it be so hard to just actually cover sports as sports, instead of trying to make a soap opera out of everything, and hire a few people who actually know what they are talking about?

AutographCollector

07-28-2007, 09:11 PM

just look at the programming they show. Rock, Paper Scissors Championship?? Poker Tournaments?? WTF?!

That's on ESPN Classic, and boy does that tick me off. Where are the home run derbys from the 1950's that they USED to show all the time!?!?!?

Atlanta Braves Freak

07-28-2007, 09:39 PM

That's on ESPN Classic, and boy does that tick me off. Where are the home run derbys from the 1950's that they USED to show all the time!?!?!?
Yeah!! The HRD's they used to have at Wrigley Field and nobody was in the stands.

Dalkowski110

07-28-2007, 10:27 PM

When I read the title of this thread, the first thought in my mind was "Yeah, and what else is new?"

But seriously, the Yankees bias they have is just awful. Sure, the Red Sox and Mets get a lot of coverage, but it's primarily negative coverage. The old adage "any publicity is good publicity" really doesn't apply to ESPN, because other than the Yankees, even when they show the Red Sox and Mets, they have no idea what they're talking about. During the murder trial of Scott Peterson, can you guess what Mets pitching coach Rick Peterson got called by accident about a million times? And how awful John Maine would be? And why Oliver Perez still can't succeed? And why Lastings Milledge is horrible and has no value? And with the Red Sox, someone actually confused Kevin Youkilis with Dustin Pedroia...these people have no idea what they're talking about!

The Commissioner

07-28-2007, 10:31 PM

I thought ESPN was unwatchable 15 years ago. That seems like the golden age of television compared to how it is now. At least 15 years ago CNN had a rival sports show on. They were great until they began to try to mimic ESPN and give their anchors "flair" and witty repartee. Eventually CNN's show got cancelled leaving ESPN with a monopoly on the sports coverage. I didn't like Dan Patrick, but he was Damon Runyon compared to Stuart Scott. These guys are too caught up in promoting themselves and couldn't care less about showing what transpired in sports that day.

DoubleX

07-29-2007, 10:07 AM

I don't mean to defend ESPN, but in terms of slanted coverage, it really is simple supply and demand. For every Royals fan that wants to watch Baseball Tonight for coverage of the Royals, there are maybe 10 Yankees and Red Sox fans watching for coverage of the Yankees and Red Sox. It's also nothing new that there will be less general interest and thus less coverage in teams that consistently struggle. That's another reason why teams like the Royals and Pirates get less coverage, and why an upstart team like the Brewers this year for example, will get more in comparison (but still less than teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, and Cubs).

Rennie Stennett

07-29-2007, 10:37 PM

Entertainment, Sports, re-run, network

Do you ever catch "The Herd" with Colin Cowherd. He is so brutaly honest about what you guys talk of in this thread, that it's incredible. It's all about the ratings, he says. He is the Tom Letkis of Sports Radio.

http://espnradio.espn.go.com/espnradio/show?showId=theherd

http://www.blowmeuptom.com/

Fox Sports comes up with the idea of showing on the right side of your TV screen a list of what is coming up next; each game or each story in a list format. ESPN copied this idea or style, without blinking an eye, but they don't show every game, like FOX does. Fox actually does a good job with this.

Chirs Bermen actually introduce guys at the all-star game with his stupid nick names he gives guys (ie; Kirby 'union gap' Puckett). Berman has never had an original idea or style his whole life. He has stole everything that he uses.

KCGHOST

07-30-2007, 09:46 AM

Lin_Kuei_Fighter

07-30-2007, 11:58 AM

Here's my beef with ESPN

The Ducks win the Stanley Cup- ok, it's Sportscenter's top story, but after they show highlights, they go to the Yankees game.

The NBA finals is a different story. The moment the Spurs beat the Cavs, NONSTOP NBA finals coverage.

NewEnglandAmazins

07-30-2007, 01:10 PM

The Sportscenter segment "Who's Now" has got to be, without a doubt, the most airheaded, idiotic $#@! I have ever seen, in my twenty five plus years of viewing the network. Much of the rest isn't much less on the Asinine scale.

I agree 100%, ESPN's "Who's Now?" is a totally useless segment. ESPN brass needs to get their act together and broadcast actual sports news.
As far as BBTN, I'm ok with the fantasy numbers aspect of the show just as long as they focus on highlights and not lowlights.

Erik Bedard

07-30-2007, 05:47 PM

Lin_Kuei_Fighter

07-30-2007, 08:04 PM

Stephen A. Smith sucks.

He's projecting the Celtics to be a possible NBA finals team, the KG trade may not have happened yet.

And what's so bad about Who's Now?

Edit: Linda Cohn pronounced his name as "Saltamacchia"

And, Steve Phillips said Teixeira could hit for average.

.283 ain't that great.

royalsfaninmaine

07-31-2007, 01:54 AM

I have been completely disappointed with espn. I agree with the poor coverage of "other" teams and am also disappointed in their broadcasts of games. I'm referring to Sunday night of course. I like to score games sometimes and have found it very difficult to do that with their coverage. It is difficult to see every pitch, between their commercial breaks that come back to the game late, after one or even two pitches have been thrown, their in-game breaks for either "sports updates" and lately for their "Bonds break-ins"... Add into that Jon Miller's propensity to talk about every other game BUT the one he is supposed to be calling and it can be a pain just to follow things. It is very frustrating watching the network for an actual game.

Then I have tried several times of late to watch Sportscenter, but turn it off everytime. It is too over the top and as has been mentioned, the "Who's Now" thing is just stupid. Sportscenter used to be watchable and you would come away with a little understanding of what actually happened in the sports world...now, who knows?

It is too bad, really.

royalsfaninmaine

07-31-2007, 02:07 AM

...about how poorly they broadcast games, I forgot to mention the original point. I did the same thing as KCGhost thinking there would be plenty of KC highlights. I was disappointed of course. I certainly understand the lack of KC coverage in general, but when they win big like that over one of "THE" teams it seems they should get a little more highlight action. frustrating.

DoubleX

07-31-2007, 09:22 AM

But for every Yankees and Red Sox fan, there is NESN and the YES network. Why does ESPN have to be an extension of those?

Because ESPN televises nationally, and nationally, there is greater interest in the Yankees and Red Sox then most other teams. Hey, I think it would be great if ESPN could give relatively equal coverage to all 30 teams, but what would happen is that it will likely get less viewers because people most people don't want to sit through an extended analysis of the Devil Rays or Pirates and so on.

Captain Cold Nose

07-31-2007, 09:42 AM

Because ESPN televises nationally, and nationally, there is greater interest in the Yankees and Red Sox then most other teams. Hey, I think it would be great if ESPN could give relatively equal coverage to all 30 teams, but what would happen is that it will likely get less viewers because people most people don't want to sit through an extended analysis of the Devil Rays or Pirates and so on.

Sorry, I don't buy it. If someone is not a Yankee or Red Sox fan, and considering there are 30 MLB teams the odds are the numbers of non-Yankee and Red Sox fans greatly outnumber those of Mt. Myopia, a little balance might actually get them the viewers they turn off because of the extended Mt. Myopia coverage.

Lin_Kuei_Fighter

07-31-2007, 10:24 AM

I'm all in favor of baseball coverage. As long as its done right and unbiased way.

Charger567

07-31-2007, 12:03 PM

HDH

08-01-2007, 03:16 PM

I just heard the best Peter Gammons quote on BBTN:

Something was said about the Sox adding Gagne to their strong bullpen, which would only mean the rich getting richer.

"Well I don't think it's about money."

.... and the dumb getting dumber.

No kidding; I am confounded by the excessive coverage of "The World Series of Poker" but, no words can describe my amazment for the coverage of the "Rock-Paper-Scissors Championship". I can only assume that relatives of ESPN's executives or biggest sponsors are participants.

ESPN,

Could you be a little more Third-World, please?

Stray Cat

08-05-2007, 05:30 PM

Fox Sports comes up with the idea of showing on the right side of your TV screen a list of what is coming up next; each game or each story in a list format. ESPN copied this idea or style, without blinking an eye, but they don't show every game, like FOX does. Fox actually does a good job with this.

That's about all Fox does well, since moving to Missouri I expected to see equal coverage of the Royals and the Cardinals on Fox Sports Midwest. Wrong.
The Cardinals games are shown sometimes twice a day. A day game repeated at night and a night game repeated the next day. The Royals are left out
even when they play the Yankees. The Cardinals announcers are boring
and the Royals announcers are old school, they keep the chatter going with interesting information and trivia. :reporter:

Mex4Prez

08-06-2007, 07:55 AM

The ESPN game last night was hysterically bad. Joe Morgan went on a 5 minute rant on how Luis Castilla is not familar with the National league because he played in the AL his whole career. Then later on he went on to say that Castilla leg problems were as a result on playing on astro turf his whole career. C'mon Morgan, the guy was in the nl for 10 years and had leg problems before he played a game for the twins, get a clue.

Also they were talking about Jose Reyes and the camera zooms in on Lastings Milledge on the bench. I think there was one other thing, but I can't think of it.

Barry(US)Bonds

08-06-2007, 08:34 AM

Add into that Jon Miller's propensity to talk about every other game BUT the one he is supposed to be calling and it can be a pain just to follow things.

Please...say what you want about the rest of ESPN, but Jon Miller is one of the most intelligent announcers in baseball. Just because he likes to have fun in the booth doesn't mean he isn't saying meaningful things. Joe Morgan is one of the worst announcers in baseball and Jon Miller is the only thing that keeps me watching Sunday Night Baseball

Dalkowski110

08-06-2007, 09:04 AM

"I think there was one other thing"

ONE other thing? Jon Miller somehow managed to botch the pronunciation of ALL FOUR trade deadline deals he was talking about...you know, Royce King, Octovio Dotel, Mark TISH-a-ruh (Teixeira, pronounced teh-SHARE-uh), and Eric GAN-yay (not "GAHN-yay" or "ghan-YAY," which are way closer to being correct). Also, he called Ryan Theriot "Ryan Cheerio" at least twice. And what was up with him repeatedly trying to do a Spanish accent (and sounding awful trying) with Luis Castillo's name? He didn't try it for Reyes, Delgado, Gotay, Mota, or Feliciano. No offense to the guy who last posted, but it was a two-man effort...both Jon Miller and Joe Morgan were DREADFUL. Morgan made his share of gaffes, too. I thought when he flat said "he won't walk the pitcher [Glavine] here" as ball four was thrown was hilarious. Also, did you notice they started being overly critical of the Mets (as always), but when the Mets got five runs, they turned it around and started pulling for the Mets and criticizing every single thing the Cubs did, good or bad? Sheesh... They should at least be consistently for/against a team (Tim McCarver and somebody else for FOX, to their credit, are consistent...they always root against the Mets.).

Mex4Prez

08-06-2007, 09:14 AM

That's it, Royce "King". What makes that so bad is that they probably typed that hours before the game and like 7 different people could have stepped in and said something.

What would be nice is if they let the home teams regular announcers do the Sunday night game. While some would be good and some would be bad, it would be a real treat to hear some of the guys I never heard call a game. Plus they would have insight on the teams that the national guys do not.

royalsfaninmaine

08-06-2007, 01:08 PM

Please...say what you want about the rest of ESPN, but Jon Miller is one of the most intelligent announcers in baseball. Just because he likes to have fun in the booth doesn't mean he isn't saying meaningful things. Joe Morgan is one of the worst announcers in baseball and Jon Miller is the only thing that keeps me watching Sunday Night Baseball

I'm not saying Jon Miller isn't intelligent. He has been around the game a long time. He says meaningful things of course, just not things relevant to the game he is supposed to be calling at the time. I personally think he is better on the radio (calling Giants games) as it seems he is more into the game at hand. Granted that may be more a sympton of ESPN than it is Jon Miller. But, it is frustrating when he is going on ad nauseum about something completely unrelated to the current game and he is forgetting about the action on the field. Combine that with ESPN's tendency to return to the game from commercial breaks late and you have an annoying situation at best in my opinion.

I guess I am overly picky in that I grew up with Denny Matthews and Fred White calling Royals games in the Midwest and they were brilliant at keeping things moving and staying in the game at hand. Plenty of information about both teams and every pitch accounted for.

HDH

08-06-2007, 02:46 PM

I guess I am overly picky in that I grew up with Denny Matthews and Fred White calling Royals games in the Midwest and they were brilliant at keeping things moving and staying in the game at hand. Plenty of information about both teams and every pitch accounted for.

I agree with you. I was on assignment for a summer in KC a few years ago. I was very impressed.

Rennie Stennett

08-06-2007, 05:22 PM

I like Miller in that he always gives Morgan the needle. My buddy says Joe Morgan is the best. Morgan makes me puke. IF there ever was a guy who says I told you so, it is Morgan. He is redundant also when making a point. He will say it over and over again. See, See, here on the replay, I told you. Even if the replay shows Morgan was wrong he will still say it showed he was right. Last year, Steve Stone, did some ESPN games, mostly Midwest NL games, but I have not heard from him much this year. I'll take him and anyone over Morgan and Miller. I agree that Miller is better on the radio on his own.

BigSix

08-06-2007, 07:38 PM

I agree. Jon Miller does a great job. However, Joe Morgan I don't like.

Doctor Zizmor

08-08-2007, 12:50 PM

John Miller is awful. And as a Hispanic man myself, I cringe every time he says a Hispanic players name..."Ru-Ben" Sierra used to drive me nuts

Rennie Stennett

08-08-2007, 09:06 PM

Last year, Steve Stone, did some ESPN games, mostly Midwest NL games, but I have not heard from him much this year. I'll take him and anyone over Morgan and Miller.

Stoner is doing White Sox games on fox sports net with Hawk Harrelson.

KCGHOST

08-09-2007, 08:31 AM

As a baseball announcer Joe Morgan was a great player.

SouthPaw77

08-09-2007, 12:14 PM

Where are the home run derbys from the 1950's that they USED to show all the time!?!?!?

Oh my God, I'd forgotten about those! No doubt, they need to bring those back!

Announcer you'd rather listen to for a home run derby: Chris Berman or Mark Scott?

Is it even close?

PlayJay

08-11-2007, 01:07 AM

I'd sooner have Rosie O'Donnell do Home Run Derby than Chris Berman. I think when he goes home, he listens to airchecks of himself.

I'll tell you what's next. 'Who's Now' will branch out, and they'll be comparing broadcast personalities. How does Michael Irvin rate against Rick Sutcliffe? God help us all.

It's gotten to the point where I turn the sound off with Sunday night baseball. Miller and Morgan have become so full of themselves, that they consider themselves to be of far greater importance than the event they're covering. Tim McCarver suffers from this disease himself. It's called Sanctimonitis.

Texas Rangers

08-13-2007, 05:01 PM

i usually get to stay and watch the entire 30/hour long episode of BBTN and Sportscenter in order to watch a 20 second clip of my rangers play when i dont get to see them.

Boston Boxer

09-08-2007, 03:11 AM

I completely agree with this. The Who's Now thing was the final straw for me and I've stopped watching ESPN as a result. ESPN is largely now just self-indulgent tripe and has become the MTV of sports. Would it be so hard to just actually cover sports as sports, instead of trying to make a soap opera out of everything, and hire a few people who actually know what they are talking about?

ya, the who's now thing did it for me...although i have been saying for many years no, Stewart Scott has not business being on T.V. He stinks. He thinks he is cool and funny and really hip, but he just plain stinks.

PlayJay

09-09-2007, 04:27 AM

Those who carry the ESPN sickness after they've left the network seem to infect wherever it is that they go, e.g. Keith Olbermann. Symptoms include, but are not limited to: an overly inflated sense of self-importance, a need to feel that one's own sense of humor carries the answers to all extent questions, and that a haircut and wardrobe exceeding four digits is the passport to further knowledge.

Yes, it does sound like Stuart Scott, doesn't it? It's a profile, though. If this is what Sports has become, the end result might be a positive one: it will ground you.