4 HRs in a row... Boston Vs NY

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

Dan (Bostonmarathonman)

No, I am a BASEBALL fan!!!!

I have said this before. ESPN is KILLING baseball. As far as ESPN is concerned, if it doesn't pertain to the Red Sox, Yankees or Barry Bonds (and the Mets to a small extent) then it doesn't matter.

How many times have the Red Sox and Yankees been on ESPN over the last three years?? Now, how many times has EVERY other team been on. ESPN paid Major League baseball for the rights to broadcast ALL Major League teams not just a select few.

Heck, how many times have the Red Sox and Yankees been on this year alone?? I heard on a sports radio station that Sports Center or another show on ESPN had a clock ticking down the minutes before the first Red Sox - Yankees game Friday night. How ridiculous is that?? A countdown before the first meeting, early in the season, between the two teams. By doing that, ESPN made it seem like it was the Seventh Game of the World Series and Babe Ruth and Ted Williams were playing. (Yes, I know both teams are in the AL East and that scenario is not possible but was just using it as a non-sensical example).

Last year, while the Red Sox and Yankees were on numerous times, how many times were the Detroit Tigers on? Not many and I don't think they were EVER on before the All-Star break. The team that eventually went on to represent the American League in the World Series probably wouldn't have been shown at all. That is, unless, they happened to be playing the Red Sox or Yankees.

ESPN can argue (and I am sure one of their executives would if they posted on this board) that they broadcast what gets the most ratings. However, that is, in my opinion, a circular argument. When you only televise mostly two or three teams, other teams fans get tired of it and stop watching. When those "other" teams are broadcast, their fans don't know about it or don't care and so they don't watch, thereby smaller ratings. When ESPN does televise those "other" teams, I am sure a lot of Red Sox and Yankees fans aren't watching because they don't care about those teams. Again, smaller ratings.

Years ago, I used to watch nearly EVERY game ESPN televised, no matter WHO was playing. Why?? Because I liked to see players I normally didn't get to see. Looking up stats in the newspaper was nice but actually seeing the players play was even better. It helped me decide who to vote for in the All-Star game. Now, a lot of players NEVER get any television time because they DON'T play for the Red Sox or Yankees. I also liked watching because you never knew when a record might be broken, a No-Hitter thrown or a Triple Play turned.

Secondly, if ESPN is worried about ratings and advertising dollars then they shouldn't have paid so much for the rights to broadcast ALL Major League teams. As far as I remember, I don't think anyone was holding a gun to the executives head who signed the contract. Even if they were, that contract would be null and void because it was signed while under duress, right attorneys??

If ESPN wanted only the rights to the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets, they should have just negotiated with those teams. But they didn't. Probably because 1) fans of other teams would have screamed bloody murder and contacted their politicians and 2) it was cheaper to do an end run and get the Rights to all the teams and then only televise the few they wanted.

I hardly ever watch ESPN baseball or Baseball Tonight anymore because of ALL RED SOX AND YANKEES, ALL THE TIME!!! I don't know who a lot of the players are now, how good they are and who deserves to be on the All-Star team or who doesn't. That matters, too, because the League winning the All-Star Game gets home field advantage for the World Series.

There might be a deserving player who plays for a small market team in the AL who is having a great season (maybe a career year) who never gets to the All-Star game because casual fans only know who plays for the Red Sox or Yankees, thanks to ESPN. That player also might not get picked to the team because of who is managing the team. Their only chance and they don't make it.

You could argue that the Red Sox and Yankees are winning teams and deserve to be on more often. Really, before 2004, how many times had the Red Sox won a World Series since the advent of television?? To my knowledge the answer would be ZERO since TV wasn't invented until the mid-1920's.

Between the time the Florida Marlins became a Major League team and 2004, how many World Series did they win?? How many did the Red Sox?? Or, a better way to ask it, between the time the Marlins played their first game and now, how many World Series titles have they won and how many have the Red Sox won?? I believe the Marlins have won more World Series titles, so based on the "winning team" argument, they should be televised 30 times a year instead of the Red Sox.

How many times are the Florida Marlins actually going to be televised on ESPN this year?? I heard the Red Sox and Yankees are going to be televised over 30 times EACH. I bet the Marlins are on five times AT MOST.

From what I have read, the Marlins have a core group of young players who are really good. I think the entire payroll for the team last year was about $15 million dollars and they almost made the Play-Offs. Compare their ENTIRE team payroll to oh, say, Manny Ramirez or Dice-K. Each of those guys make almost, if not more, than an entire MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL TEAM!!! Crazy.

Another problem with ESPN only televising the Red Sox and Yankees is that in this day and age of Agents, PR people and marketing, why would a great player want to play for a small market team?? Boston and New York can pay the big salaries, they are big cities and they are on ESPN ALL THE TIME. That television coverage can be translated into opportunities outside baseball for other income. So, a smart, good looking player can get X amount from the Red Sox or Yankees or the same amount from Kansas City, which team do you think he is going to sign with, especially if he wants exposure for advertising deals?

Also, Hall of Fame voting has to be considered. If border line players are never seen on National television and don't get the "buzz" it is going to be harder for them to get voted in. Conversely, it is going to be easier for border line Red Sox and Yankee players to get voted in.

You can argue about simulcast games on the computer or satellite but a lot of people don't want those packages or cant afford them. Hypothetically, if my 87 year-old Grand Mother liked baseball and was a Pirates fan but lived in Nebraska on a fixed income, do you think she would have internet access and watch the games there? Do you think she could afford satellite, pay per view or the MLB package?? Probably not. She would have to rely on cable TV and since Nebraska is not in the Pirates home market, she wouldn't get to see games unless they were televised on ESPN. Not happening.

Like I said before, to fix this problem, if I were Commissioner of Baseball, I would make it a rule that ESPN could not televise any Red Sox or Yankees games before the All-Star break. This way teams and players that nobody knows about will get some National exposure. That would make All-Star voting a little more fair and the casual fan a little more knowledgable about the players. This would also fix the problem of a "surprise" team (ala the Tigers of last year) not getting any coverage until late in the season. Then, maybe the ratings of the World Series would be higher.

Also, most likely, the Red Sox and Yankees are going to make the Play-Offs every year or come close, so televising their games after the All-Star break is going to be more meaningful as far as the Post Season goes than a team that is thirty games out.

Bud Selig says he wants to see Major League baseball go more international in the coming years, I say he should focus on making it more FAIR, at least as far as televising games goes before he starts broadening beyond our shores.

It is not likely to happen but all of that is my opinion on how to improve the game,

David