I seriously HATE
OddRodz
Posts: 645 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
the chick on ESPN Sunday night Baseball. Good gawd go away. ESPN is trying to ruin baseball with the PC crap.
0
Comments
I agree. Aaron Boone needs to go.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
What do you mean "trying"!
They've done it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Steve
I gotta go with the Aaron Boone thing above too..
yep, that's true also... along with 'They've done it' ugh.
ESPN was IT for 25 years. It's lame factor has since exceeded capacity.
I just hate that they keep showing those people in the broadcast booth every few innings. Just the game would be plenty.
When you stop to think about it, it is amazing how few good analysts there are for all sports right now. I just watched TNT's A-team of Reggie miller and Chris Webber last night. Marv must drink himself to sleep every night after dealing with those two clowns. Phil Simms does super bowls. But the ESPN baseball chick is on a level of terrible I never knew existed.
Come on, now. You've got the worst commentator of any organized sport in the booth for your Bruins. Even she isn't on his level of insufferable suck. Or the worst booth in all of sports which is the Yankees radio tandem of John Sterling and Suzyn Waldman. The thing is, if the majority of viewers truly wanted a competent (or the rare great) analyst he/she would be there. They would have paid John Smoltz more than Fox/MLB Network. Or before him, they would have ponied up to keep Steve Stone when he was briefly with ESPN after he was pushed out of the Cubs' TV booth after the '04 season when Dustbag Baker and Kent Mercker complained to upper management that he was too critical of them. Or they would have kept Mark Mulder or some of the other guys ESPN has let leave for various RSN's or other gigs. ESPN just knee-capped Doug Glanville during that recent string of cuts. That's a guy who played for over a decade, has written articles for the WSJ and NY Times, has a Penn education, understands advanced statistics, almost always knows what he's talking about, and he was launched because he was just a straight up no-nonsense analyst. I'm sure his bosses considered him "non-descript", and I'm certain the majority of people who regularly tune in to Sunday Night Baseball would much rather have John Kruk in the booth over him because he makes fat jokes about himself so he's kinda funny.
There's a reason Steven A Smith kept his job during the ESPN knivings despite reportedly making over 3 mill a year, why Bayless and Cowherd make the money they do with Fox, and why sites like Barstool have a following. The masses prefer the hot-take artists, the contrarians for the sake of being contrarians, and the Barkley/John Kruk goofy former players who say stupid things act. If they didn't then Kevin Millar, who constantly struggles to string together a coherent sentence between his southern pseudo-frat-boy bro babbling, wouldn't have the prime gig at MLB Network that he does. People claim they want legit analysis, but they really don't. They want some combination of the dope at the end of the bar who babbles crazy things to anyone within earshot, or the idiot who spends his time on message boards or calling into local sports talk radio shows with a no-fail plan on how the local baseball club can acquire Clayton Kershaw for 3 Joe Kellys from their team's roster, and the former player turned "analyst" who is willing to call out a fellow player and do it in a harsh or semi-harsh manner. I remember when NBC first hired Jeremy Roenick as a studio "analyst". Because he had a tendency to call out players in various radio hit interviews that he largely did in his old playing markets, everyone thought he was going to be the Barkley of the NHL. Thus far he's called out one player, ex-teammate Patrick Marleau. He spends most of his time saying stupid things on TV or Twitter and calling out fans for not selling out playoff games in Ottawa and Anaheim.
Since I don't care about the NBA, or the Patriots/Brady/Belichick, the Cowboys, or whatever Tebow is up to, I don't watch ESPN outside of actual baseball games, so I have no idea who is even left on their analyst roster of options (I'm pretty sure Sutcliffe and Chris Singleton are still there...but neither of them is an upgrade either), but I'm guessing with the way things have gone for them over the last two years, their pool of baseball-related talent is probably nearly as barren as their formerly good (online) NHL coverage. I have no idea why she's there, presumably just to add some diversity because other than being pretty astute at analyzing swing mechanics, I don't know what else she brings. I'm assuming they were maybe looking at having a perky Michelle Beadle type in the booth as another reason she's there. But Harold Reynolds never brought anything other than bro-ing it up with David Ortiz and Griffey Jr, and randomly getting loud on set for no justified reason either, and yet he's kept a gig for 20+ years despite sexually harassing co-workers all over the land.
That said, she doesn't bother me as much as Buster Olney and his brethren currently do. The swath of middle aged, boring, self-important/self-satisfied social-yuppie/Springsteen audience demo types who glom onto a baseball hot topic from Twitter that's recently been passed around like a joint at a Phish reunion show. It's not just him, it's also people that I generally respect like Joe Posnanski and pretty much every above average baseball columnist these days. All season it's been a constant swelling of those guys taking it upon themselves to tell everyone (players, fans etc) how baseball should be played. How we're supposed to enjoy the soccer atmosphere of a glorified exhibition and the arbitrarily manufactured nationalism like the WBC provided, or how we're supposed to be cool with Jose Bautista's tired act because that's just how he likes to play the game.
These would be the same dopes, save for Tom Boswell and a couple others, who couldn't figure out that well maybe it's unnatural for multiple dudes to hit 60-70 HRs a year throughout the 90's and early aughts. So because they weren't bright enough to figure any of that out, now they're apparently overcompensating trying to find a cause to get behind and now because of social media and ESPN has apparently encouraged socio-political hot-takes in sports commentary, it's social protest and the unwritten rules of baseball that they're getting behind. I mean, when some of these players who did the hardcore anabolic steroids like McGwire in the late 80's and 90's start biting it at 55 from liver failure like 70's era Pittsburgh Steelers, we can all rest easier knowing that some rube cow-milking farmboy from Vermont used his column to inform us that Jose Bautista's bat-flips and stare-downs were all the rage once upon a time. Though I guess that's a lot easier for some marginally talented columnist to write about as opposed to why Jake Arrieta can't throw a slider for a strike anymore. That would be actual analysis and the masses don't want any of that nonsense.
since ESPN gets tons of cable money from pigeons who don't even realize they are paying for ESPN every month , maybe they figure they can do what ever they want , hire whoever they want and the money will still come in.
To be perfectly candid, the Jessica Sanchez shtick has already aged way beyond it's expiration date after I had to sit through one of those dugout interviews with a player to discuss their affection for garden hoses, motor oil & pork rinds while a game is being played with absolutely no description of the action whatsoever, but thank God for the split screen [eyeroll]......until Shulman needs to break for a commercial and remind the audience that so-and-so just popped out to end the inning. ESPN baseball coverage is a freeking joke. Period. Yes. I'm drunk.
Jon Wertheim, who is best known as the lead tennis writer for SI, and a Tennis Channel talking head, has been covering some sports media business type stuff as well recently. He noted that ESPN paid twice as much as the next highest bidder for the rights to cover US Open tennis just because. No tangible reason other than to blow the next highest offer out of the water to essentially whip their thing around in front of other prospective bidders for various sports broadcasting rights. He also noted that they had data that showed that 70% of all people who pay for ESPN as part of their cable/satellite bill never watch any of ESPN's channels. So if they outbid themselves for tennis coverage, imagine what they overbid for Monday Night Football and their NBA rights.
Seeing as they've cut their west coast Baseball Tonight show in favor of a rerun of NFL Live, I can't imagine ESPN really cares all that much about their baseball coverage anyway. Baseball has become hockey to them. It's completely regional, and ESPN has played a large part in baseball becoming regional seeing as though they spent a decade in failing to realize there were teams outside of the Yankees and Red Sox still in operation. So like hockey, baseball doesn't translate to all their talking head/manufactured argument-shouting match TV or radio shows. It wasn't that long ago that ESPN had baseball games on 4 nights a week. Now it's what, 2 nights? Wednesday and Sunday...I think. So long as they don't interfere with their NBA coverage anyway. And the average baseball game still beats the average NBA or college football game in ratings so it's not like they're taking a hardline financial stance on their shallower baseball coverage. Since a la carte is already an option for 19 networks and major cable channels, it's not going to be too long until it's nearly completely or completely a la carte, and ESPN will only exist to serve the Bud Lime & wings sect.
lane - Boston actually has two of the worst (Jack Edwards for the Bruins and Tommy Heinsohn for the Celtics). What is really unfortunate is that Andy Brickley is one of the better analysts (IMO) in hockey, and Mike Gorman might be the best NBA play-by-play guy (yes, even better than Mike Breen), and both get overshadowed by their partners.
Agree with you on ESPN in every respect. Their demise has been fascinating to watch unfold.
Brickley isn't Edwards awful, but I certainly wouldn't put him up there with the top analysts either...and that bar is a shallow one to begin with. He'd be in the bottom third on my list. Obviously the thread was about ESPN analysts, thus national analysts, so if we were to include local/regional guys we'd have to toss in another qualifier with them which is- Insufferable Homer. And that is another thing most fans are completely ok with (so long as it's their team being homer'd).
I'm in Chicago and there are/were two great examples of that. One, Hawk Harrelson. Just brutally awful. Inarguably the worst...right up there with Marty Brennaman, if you exclude the aforementioned two dopes in the Yankee radio booth who are on their own level of insufferability (along with Edwards). Even a good portion of the White Sox fandom can't stand the guy. He's part-time now, but he's been in their TV booth for over 30 years. That means 30+ years of White Sox fans hearing his same tired 60's era Red Sox, Yaz and Rico Petrocelli stories. He's proof that Jerry Reinsdorf is the most loyal owner ever. Two, Ron Santo. For nearly 30 years as the color analyst for Cubs radio, he was just...awful at his job. He did literally zero prep work. He would talk to players and the manager, sure, but none of that translated to his commentary anyway. He didn't know about anyone's stats, he didn't know where players came from...whether they were drafted and developed as a Cub, if that player was signed as a free agent, or was acquired via trade. You'd see a top draft pick, like an early first rounder get promoted...and he had no clue who they were even though he did spring training games two months prior where they were playing right in front of him. "Where'd we get him from, Pat(Hughes)?". "First rounder, 5th overall in the 2004 draft, Ronnie." That was Santo and because he used "we" all the time, he got upset when they sucked, he was super emotional about everything, so that translated to him caring about the team as much as the hardcore fan did. And of course he was Hall of Fame level player for the club, so he's beloved. He was basically just a longtime fan who they handed a headset and mic to. They also hired him over Bob Brenly who I think is one of the better analysts out there. So if there was any doubt that any broadcaster ever really cares about how good their broadcasts are, there's example #86.
Going back to hockey, you could probably throw ol' Eddie Olczyk in that group too. Most folks only know him from his national NBC analyst gig where he's passable because he tames down his schtick when he's national, but when he's in the booth for the Blackhawks he's been just immeasurably terrible since the Hawks won the Cup in 2009. It's catch-phrase after tired catch-phrase. Puck in the back of net, active stick, happy humans, he looked like he was shot out of a cannon, etc rinse repeat. Everyone has their schtick, but he's one of those guys who truly thinks he's hilarious, and he has no qualms about completely running his material into the ground. Oh, the fake laugh he has...it's the local equivalent of that uncomfortable broadcast silence between him and Pierre on NBC broadcasts whenever Pierre is talking over him or wearing him down with some meaningless point. Sad thing is, his first two years in the booth he was one of the best. Now he's dam near a must mute. If the Hawks' radio call wasn't 6 or 7 seconds ahead of the TV broadcast, I'd be listening to the radio call over Eddie Nocheck (his nickname here from years ago because he played no defense despite being on a line with two of the best shutdown defenders of that era in Curt Fraser and Troy Murray).
Don't know if you watched any of that Ottawa/Rangers series but if you did, you may recall that bullet Erik Karlsson goal in Game Six from the point. Now that's a shot that maybe 2 or 3 NHL defensemen are capable of getting through when you factor in the way he wheeled through the clogged up circle and then maneuvered along the blueline to open up a shooting lane for that shot. Especially against a team like the Rangers who are one of the many NHL teams who gum up the middle of the zone. There is no bigger Duncan Keith fan than Olczyk. Keith would have put that shot directly into the crest of the forechecking winger 99.999% of the time because his shot isn't that great, and his offensive instincts aren't anywhere near as great as most hockey fans would think they are because he racks up a ton of secondary assists and powerplay points. But what did ol' Eddie O spend his time praising? Freaking Kyle Turris's close-off along the back-wall to pick up the puck and then pass it off. Ok great, he did his basic job. His one responsibility on the play. That's one part of it. That happens tens of times during any game that leads to absolutely nothing. He didn't say jack about Karlsson's shot. He went on and on about how great Turris's effort was on that play. Probably because in his day, he wouldn't have done any board work since he'd be preparing to flee the zone early in order to cherry pick.
I used to be a big Ray Ferraro fan too. Last week he spent roughly half a day on Twitter getting into a bickering war with fans over how he thinks Roman Josi is better than Subban. Now Josi is great. No argument about that. Josi has scored more points in the playoffs. There's a reason for that. Subban and Ekholm are the pairing who are getting the dungeon defensive zone starts and are being deployed in the shutdown role. Yet it's Subban who is the one tilting the ice in the Preds favor at over 54%. Josi is at 48%. Ellis is 47%. That's a big difference especially factoring in Subban's more difficult zone starts, and facing the opposition's best line(s) much more often. I mean it's fine that Ferraro thinks that Josi is the type of steady player that he prefers. But it's not like he's done even this simple research into how much Subban is dominating and controlling play this post-season. I mean that's what an analyst is supposed to do. If I can do it in a couple minutes for a message board post, you'd think a guy who is probably drawing a high 6 or low 7 figure yearly salary should be capable of more than OMG, Subban has made a glaring turnover. Yeah, because most players who dominate the puck are going to get double teamed and are always among the league leaders in turnovers every single year, Ray. These guys will just never let the 80's and 90's go. You expect the average fan over 40 years old who grew up watching the Ken Daneyko types in failing to realize that part of being a good defenseman is helping to get the puck out of your end. And if a player is capable of skating the puck out of his end on his own without having to rely on 2 or 3 passes to get into the offensive zone, then that's wildly valuable. There's a reason Montreal continues to fail to score goals. There's no one on that team that can skate from the back end. Of course, it also doesn't help that they don't have a legit first or second line center either.
FWIW, in the NHL I have Daryl Reaugh from the Stars as the top analyst. Then probably Tyson Nash down in AZ. He's doing some studio work for the NHL Network this post-season if you want to check out his act. I like Drew Remenda up in Oil-land too. Though he tends to wear down previous plays and discussions way too long while play is going on. For national NHL guys, it's just as brutal as NBCSN's studio show with the dope in my icon and Mr Personality, the perpetually vanilla Keith Jones.
Brickley is just a drunk. I've seen the idiot on bar stools mumbling incoherently south of boston often enough. A lot of the local broadcast guys are just patronage hires , they linger for decades in some of these slots and no one seems to know why. Do they have blackmail on someone in the organization?
With regards to ESPN I think they just guessed wrong , they didn't think the cable subscriber gravy train was going to come to an end when they bid on the rights to things.
I don't know when that $7 a month thing started but I first got cable in 1985 and I only dropped it last year. $7 a month for say 25 years is $2100 I personally paid ESPN. I bet I've watched about 10 hours of ESPN in that time, so apparently the going rate for the little bits of sportscenter I watched was $210 an hour. Such a bargain that when people found out about it they started to cancel their service at a rate of a few million a month.
Note that by what I've seen that $7 a month is what the cable companies were being charged , I'm sure the customers didn't get it for cost .
Nothing new though , a lot of companies have lost their way lately. Look what happened to MTV ( MUSIC TELEVISION ) , video didn't kill the radio star it was teen moms or maybe strangers living together in a house that did it . Or the weather channel , never mind the alaska state troopers , I flipped to it because you know , weather . How about Mcdonalds? its slower than burger king now , it used to be if you wanted a fast burger you went to MCD's if you wanted a good one you went to BK or wendy's . MCD's gives you awful burgers at a snails pace now . Carmakers? all the new Ford trucks are as ugly as Mopars now , for some reason Ford decided to copy the team in 4th place
.
Movies and TV ? Can I just watch something with a good story? I don't want to learn about apartheid or women and their struggle for equal wages when I go to the movies stop shoving your idiotic causes in my face or I'm going to opt out.