Kruk Bashes O's

[davearm]

That may be, but that doesn't mean that Kruk's opinion here was impartial, objective, and logical. In fact, I think it's fair to say that most of the time, Kruk has no idea what he's talking about.

I always likened Kruk to a guy you'd talk to about sports while sitting in a bar. The qualifier was, of course, that Kruk would be slobbering, stumbling drunk. Either that, or he's the guy that would just randomly chime in "Yeah, they're awful!" and that would be his contribution to the conversation.

Honestly, isn't that what he did here? Do you think he even watches O's games. Honestly, it's pretty easy for someone that doesn't follow the team whatsoever to look at the bullpen's W-L record and ERA and say, "Yep, they're bullpen is awful. That's why they suck." Same with the fact that the team seems allergic to home runs.

Yeah, the O's are a mess. There's enough young talent and enough money available in the franchise, assuming that Angelos is serious about giving control to MacPhail, that makes this job fairly appealing, especially to a manager that wants to make his mark with a franchise that has history and a gorgeous ballpark on it's side. That's what makes this job more appealing than the Devil Rays, Pirates, Reds, Royals, etc. jobs that may or may not be out there after the season.

The O's are a mess, but it's nowhere near as bad as what Kruk decided to pile on today. I think that's why people, including myself, are irritated.

I don't put much weight into anything Kruk says (although he is entertaining), and he most certainly is not looking at this situation objectively.

But the vibe I'm getting here is that some folks believe that anyone from ESPN or wherever that "bashes" the O's must hate them, or be a closet Yanks fan, or whatever. That's simply not true.

[J.D.]

I don't put much weight into anything Kruk says (although he is entertaining), and he most certainly is not looking at this situation objectively.

But the vibe I'm getting here is that some folks believe that anyone from ESPN or wherever that "bashes" the O's must hate them, or be a closet Yanks fan, or whatever. That's simply not true.

As long as you know who to really pay attention to within ESPN, it's not so bad.

John Kruk is certainly one human being that I put absolutely no stock in whatever comes out of his mouth. I think I accepted that the first time I ever saw him on the air.

ESPN definitely slants their coverage towards the teams that bring them in money, and yes, some of the anchors are clearly fans of certain teams. But ESPN as a network doesn't have an anti-Orioles agenda. I know that for the simple fact that the Orioles haven't been relevant enough for ESPN to have any kind of agenda regarding them at all. For people to think that ESPN is out to get the O's is for people to have a blown-out-of-proportion sense of importance regarding the O's.

[davearm]

True, we suck. So do the Royals, Pirates, Reds, etc.

But how about they talk about the Indians, Mariners, A's, etc??? Teams that are having really good years, but aren't the normal Yanks, Sox, Cubs, Mets. This is why the ratings for the World Series have been down lately. Unless the Yanks or Sox make the Series, nobody knows anything about the teams involved because ESPN hasn't said a damn word about anyone. It's why nobody cared about the White Sox-Astros two years ago, and why nobody cared about Tigers-Cardinals last year.

If ESPN would actually cover the GOOD TEAMS, and not just the BIG NAME teams, I would be fine with them not mentioning the O's at all. WE don't deserve coverage right now, but the teams playing good baseball outside of the big dogs absolutely deserve coverage.

Let me ask you this. And this goes for you too, MSK.

Which do you believe:

a) people care most about the teams ESPN covers; or

b) ESPN covers the teams people care most about.

In other words, does ESPN's coverage dictate fan interest, or merely reflect fan interest?

[Aberdeener]

True, we suck. So do the Royals, Pirates, Reds, etc.

But how about they talk about the Indians, Mariners, A's, etc??? Teams that are having really good years, but aren't the normal Yanks, Sox, Cubs, Mets. This is why the ratings for the World Series have been down lately. Unless the Yanks or Sox make the Series, nobody knows anything about the teams involved because ESPN hasn't said a damn word about anyone. It's why nobody cared about the White Sox-Astros two years ago, and why nobody cared about Tigers-Cardinals last year.

If ESPN would actually cover the GOOD TEAMS, and not just the BIG NAME teams, I would be fine with them not mentioning the O's at all. WE don't deserve coverage right now, but the teams playing good baseball outside of the big dogs absolutely deserve coverage.

amen, excellent point. though i think teams like the yanks have earned that continuous coverage by being continuously 'in it'. when a team like the tigers comes out of nowhere, i think its a bit harder to work them into the daily routine of covering the winning teams.

[J.D.]

Yeah, the more I listen to Kruk's rant (at about 19 minutes into each half hour on ESPNews, if you haven't heard it yet or just can't get enough of it), the more it's apparant and obvious that he isn't being unbiased AT ALL in his assessment of the O's. He may be hitting a little closer to home than we all like, but he's definitely wrong in the reasoning for his opinion.

[YardBirds13]

Let me ask you this. And this goes for you too, MSK.

Which do you believe:

a) people care most about the teams ESPN covers; or

b) ESPN covers the teams people care most about.

In other words, does ESPN's coverage dictate fan interest, or merely reflect fan interest?

It's sort of a chicken/egg situation if you ask me. I'd think there are Yankee and Red Sox fans in Montana, and California, and Alaska, and Texas because they are always on ESPN, and always the head of SportsCenter or the lead on BBTN.

However, obviously ESPN is going to show more of teams with more fans. I understand that. However, I still think that it would make baseball a better sport if they focused on teams playing the best baseball.

I'm not saying totally lose focus on the Yanks or Sox, as that will never happen, but at least let teh casual fan know what teams are having great years during the season, so once the World Series rolls around, people aren't saying "WTF, the Tigers!!!??? What happened to the Yanks and Sox????"

[geschinger]

Let me ask you this. And this goes for you too, MSK.

Which do you believe:

a) people care most about the teams ESPN covers; or

b) ESPN covers the teams people care most about.

In other words, does ESPN's coverage dictate fan interest, or merely reflect fan interest?

I do think there is a bit of bias towards the NYY and BOS although not enough to complain about. ESPN is located in New England and all there employees that live near Bristol are exposed to Red Sox Nation.

Do you think there would be a difference in their coverage if the Worldwide Leader's homebase was Los Angeles or Chicago instead of Bristol? I think it would definately make a difference.

[J.D.]

I do think there is a bit of bias towards the NYY and BOS although not enough to complain about. ESPN is located in New England and all there employees that live near Bristol are exposed to Red Sox Nation.

Do you think there would be a difference in their coverage if the Worldwide Leader's homebase was Los Angeles or Chicago instead of Bristol? I think it would definately make a difference.

I don't think it would make a bit of difference. You're guaranteed, wherever you go, to find Yankees fans and Red Sox fans. Doesn't matter where in the country, and hell, in most nations that give a crap about baseball, you are. The Yankees and Red Sox have the combination of history and prestige, a track-record for success, and huge-names on the payroll. Oh yeah, they also have a heated rivalry, in fact, one of the best in sports. So you have that appeal, also. People like to take sides in a rivalry. I think that helps feed into the Yankee-Red Sox thing as well.

You're not guaranteed to find Angels fans everywhere. I'd say the Cubs are probably the next closest thing you'd find as far as mass appeal goes. While it wasn't like this forever, it was definitely like this before ESPN started throwing the two in your faces over and over and over.

[MemorialStadKid]

Let me ask you this. And this goes for you too, MSK.

Which do you believe:

a) people care most about the teams ESPN covers; or

b) ESPN covers the teams people care most about.

In other words, does ESPN's coverage dictate fan interest, or merely reflect fan interest?

Great question, I am not saying that I believe that ESPN "hates" the Os. I am only referring to my observations. Does anyone remember when the Os were on a tear in early 2005?

I remember watching ESPN and even then, their Os coverage was low and not complimentary. Should they be "Os fans?" Hell no.

But you have got to be balanced on some level.

ESPN definitely helps to create fans of certain franchises. Especially when they run and produce shows like YANKEES VS RED SOX: A Rivalry, and so on.

What many on here fail to realize is that a decent-sized portion of baseball fandom are bandwagon fans. ESPN caters to bandwagoners.

MSK

[davearm]

It's sort of a chicken/egg situation if you ask me. I'd think there are Yankee and Red Sox fans in Montana, and California, and Alaska, and Texas because they are always on ESPN, and always the head of SportsCenter or the lead on BBTN.

However, obviously ESPN is going to show more of teams with more fans. I understand that. However, I still think that it would make baseball a better sport if they focused on teams playing the best baseball.

I'm not saying totally lose focus on the Yanks or Sox, as that will never happen, but at least let teh casual fan know what teams are having great years during the season, so once the World Series rolls around, people aren't saying "WTF, the Tigers!!!??? What happened to the Yanks and Sox????"

There is definitely a snowball effect, as certain subset of casual fans around the country tend to pay attention to the teams they see on TV the most.

But it's clear to me anyway that there's no chicken/egg thing going on here. IMO there's no question that ESPN's (and every other media outlet's) coverage is driven by fan interest, not the other way around.

The Cal Ripken coverage was a great example. Millions of people followed it because they genuinely cared about it, not because ESPN told them to care about it.

The bottom line is that if the O's want to be on ESPN more than the Yanks, then they need to attract more fans than the Yanks have, and until they do, stop blaming ESPN for the fact that they don't.

[YardBirds13]

There is definitely a snowball effect, as certain subset of casual fans around the country tend to pay attention to the teams they see on TV the most.

But it's clear to me anyway that there's no chicken/egg thing going on here. IMO there's no question that ESPN's (and every other media outlet's) coverage is driven by fan interest, not the other way around.

The Cal Ripken coverage was a great example. Millions of people followed it because they genuinely cared about it, not because ESPN told them to care about it.

The bottom line is that if the O's want to be on ESPN more than the Yanks, then they need to attract more fans than the Yanks have, and until they do, stop blaming ESPN for the fact that they don't.

I never said the O's deserve to be on more than the Yankees. I think completely the opposite. You sort of missed my point. I just think they need to focus more on the really good teams around baseball, and not just the Sox/Yanks/Bonds.

Those things all deserve coverage, but if they start to cover the Brewers, Indians, A's etc more, the casual fan will learn about those teams, and when the playoffs roll around, be more inclined to actually watch, rather than only watching the Yanks/Sox, and then not caring once they are eliminated.

[davearm]

I do think there is a bit of bias towards the NYY and BOS although not enough to complain about. ESPN is located in New England and all there employees that live near Bristol are exposed to Red Sox Nation.

Do you think there would be a difference in their coverage if the Worldwide Leader's homebase was Los Angeles or Chicago instead of Bristol? I think it would definately make a difference.

I sure don't.

What NBA team gets the most coverage on ESPN? Is it the Celtics?

What NHL team does ESPN hype? The Bruins?

What NASCAR driver from New England is ESPN's darling?

Any east coast bias in their coverage of golf, tennis, college basketball or football?

The closest thing to a dynasty in the NFL these days is the Patriots, while the baseball teams that are head and shoulders above the rest are the Yankees and Red Sox. Those team just so happen to be in ESPN's backyard. It's more a coincidence than by design.

[geschinger]

I don't think it would make a bit of difference. You're guaranteed, wherever you go, to find Yankees fans and Red Sox fans. Doesn't matter where in the country, and hell, in most nations that give a crap about baseball, you are. The Yankees and Red Sox have the combination of history and prestige, a track-record for success, and huge-names on the payroll. Oh yeah, they also have a heated rivalry, in fact, one of the best in sports. So you have that appeal, also. People like to take sides in a rivalry. I think that helps feed into the Yankee-Red Sox thing as well.

You're not guaranteed to find Angels fans everywhere. I'd say the Cubs are probably the next closest thing you'd find as far as mass appeal goes. While it wasn't like this forever, it was definitely like this before ESPN started throwing the two in your faces over and over and over.

I agree about the Yankees but not about the Sox. Their combination of history and prestige and track record for success is no greater than that of a team like the Cardinals or Dodgers. If the Worldwide Leader were based in Los Angeles there'd be a lot less Boston columnists and personalities on the air and more from Los Angeles for no other reason than proximity. It would definately have an effect.

[davearm]

I never said the O's deserve to be on more than the Yankees. I think completely the opposite. You sort of missed my point. I just think they need to focus more on the really good teams around baseball, and not just the Sox/Yanks/Bonds.

Those things all deserve coverage, but if they start to cover the Brewers, Indians, A's etc more, the casual fan will learn about those teams, and when the playoffs roll around, be more inclined to actually watch, rather than only watching the Yanks/Sox, and then not caring once they are eliminated.

You give fans far too little credit.

Fans care about whoever they want to care about. Not who ESPN tells them to care about.

[geschinger]

I sure don't.

What NBA team gets the most coverage on ESPN? Is it the Celtics?

What NHL team does ESPN hype? The Bruins?

What NASCAR driver from New England is ESPN's darling?

Any east coast bias in their coverage of golf, tennis, college basketball or football?

The closest thing to a dynasty in the NFL these days is the Patriots, while the baseball teams that are head and shoulders above the rest are the Yankees and Red Sox. Those team just so happen to be in ESPN's backyard. It's more a coincidence than by design.

No to your NBA/NHL examples as those teams don't win. If they were to win I do think both would get more coverage than the St Louis Blues would if they won or the San Antonio Spurs do when they win.

I'm not saying it's a problem, I don't think it's over the line. But to pretend there is no bias whatsoever requires someone to be as blind to reality as someone who thinks ESPN is out to get a team like the Orioles.