How to generally manage the East Coast Bias

[sharksrog]

The MLB Network informally continued its Top 10 Right Now series by evaluating on Clubhouse Confidential the top 10 GM's.

Brian Sabean was the most polarizing of candidates, with more than one observer ranking him #1, and several not ranking him in the top 10 at all. Sabean was described as a guy who traded prospects for veterans, but had done a marvelous job of drafting. He was ranked #5 overall.

Regarding the alleged East Coast Bias, the #3, #4 and #5 GM's were from the Rangers, Angels and Giants. #1 was the Tampa Bay GM, as they cited his average of 92 wins per season over the past 5 years despite having just the 25th-highest payroll over that period.

I believe it was Bleacher Report that posted its rankings of teams by homegrown talent. The Giants were ranked #2, with the Nationals #1.

I'm just having a hard time coming up with objective evidence for this East Coast Bias thing. Can anyone provide some objective signs of its existence?

[Islandboagie]

John Buccigross of ESPN (itself based in the East Coast city of Bristol, Connecticut) wrote that an imbalance is understandable from the East writers considering they are influenced by their close proximity and easier access to the happenings in the East. The East is home to nearly half of the country's population and is both more densely populated and was settled and developed much earlier than the West.

Fox Sports sportscaster Joe Buck attributes the shift to the economics of running a business. "If you think there is a perceived East Coast bias, guess what? You're right. That's where people are watching, that's were the numbers are." ESPN ombudsman Le Anne Schreiber wrote that fans should forget about expecting equity in teams the network selects to broadcast. "It is long proven in NBA and NFL and MLB that spreading the wealth to 30 or 32 teams is a prescription for deflating ratings," said Len DeLuca, ESPN senior vice president for programming.


By Mark Probst(Bleacher Report) on June 26, 2012

On a relatively slow news day in the sports world on Monday, one would expect that an upcoming three-game series matching two of the most storied franchises in baseball would be the top story on ESPN’s featured Sportscenter at 6pm EST.

The fact the two teams are one and two in their division, and the two biggest markets on the West Coast might have some cache, but not to the execs at ESPN.

The San Francisco Giants and the visiting first-place Los Angeles Dodgers didn’t even make the tease in the opening storylines, let alone the lead story.

Four days after LeBron James and the Miami Heat won their first NBA title, Sportscenter led with the victory celebration and parade that took place today in Miami.

OK, fine, it’s King James and the new “dream team”, certainly the Giants and Dodgers would be up next.

Story number two? 32-year-old Venus Williams, who has been battling an auto-immune deficiency is defeated at Wimbledon in the first round.

Fine, it’s kind of breaking news, it may be the end of the road for Williams, I get it. Giants-Dodgers next, right? Oh, back to LeBron for excerpts of the in-depth conversation that I’ve already seen.

Keep in mind, if the New York Yankees were getting ready to play the Boston Red Sox, even if they weren’t battling for first place, it would’ve been teased three different ways prior to Sportscenter even beginning.

ESPN would’ve designated the first five minutes of the broadcast to the matchup, going live to someone in the stadium, and then flashing back to some hack rundown about the history of the “greatest rivalry in sports.”

Does ESPN really believe that the Yankees and Red Sox are worthy of so much attention, but the Giants and Dodgers can’t even get a mention in their top stories. Do the execs at ESPN think the Yankees and Red Sox are a national story, but two teams that used to battle each other in New York, and then moved to the West coast where they’ve continued the heated rivalry, isn’t?

Of course, it isn’t the first time this has happened. It will happen many more times, and then it will be football season, and it will be even worse.

I understand that I’m not breaking news with this story, just venting about a persistent problem that nobody seems to care about. I know the suits at ESPN have heard the whining for years and it clearly has changed very little.

One solution was to move the later Sportscenter to Los Angeles, essentially throwing a bone to us mopey West Coasters, but when you still lead off with LeBron, it’s not doing much for me.

Essentially, I’m part of the problem. As much as I whine about it, I still tune into Sportscenter every day along with the many other programming ESPN offers. Why doesn’t ESPN listen to my complaints? Because they don’t have to, and yet I keep tuning in.

So unless you have some great solution as to how to fix the problem, which I'm guessing you don’t, thanks for letting a fellow West Coaster rant about something that will probably never change.

[sharksrog]

Those are both good examples of opinions that support the so-called East Coast Bias, Boagie, but I'm not seeing any true evidence of it.

We've talked about the time difference reality. No question that has to have SOME effect. But you keep backing up your opinions with more opinions -- although at least in this case they're not simply more of your own opinions.

Really, where do we see the evidence of the East Coast bias? I don't see West Coast athletics being undervalued. Where are you seeing it?

You keep coming up with stuff like the Giants' not being given enough respect with regards to their rankings compared to the Dodgers, but there are two problems there:

. You're merely talking about your opinion compared to that of someone else.

. BOTH the Giants and Dodgers are West Coast teams, so where does the "East Coast" bias come in?

[Islandboagie]

Rog- We've talked about the time difference reality. No question that has to have SOME effect. But you keep backing up your opinions with more opinions -- although at least in this case they're not simply more of your own opinions.

Really, where do we see the evidence of the East Coast bias? I don't see West Coast athletics being undervalued. Where are you seeing it?

Boagie- I've given you predictions that overwhelmingly support the east coast teams, I've given you quotes made from prominent people in the industry that I'm refering to. Articles written by people in the sports media world, and a quote from a player who has played on the east coast and west coast. You given me an example of one ranking in one media source to prove there's no east coast bias, anywhere, amongst all the different forms of media?

The Giants won the World Series, they better be #1 right now. They've brought back all the players they wanted to and likely strengthened their bullpen and outfield situations in the mean time. Saying the Giants are #1 isn't a vote of confidence, it's a fact, and they don't like it. Along with the Giants getting SOME respect for winning 2 World Series Championships in the last 3 years, all those swell non-biased analysts have made it very clear that bringing back all the players has been a failing strategy. Did we ever hear this during the Yankees or Redsox run? No. We've also heard MANY times about how the Dodgers have upgraded and some now actually consider the Dodgers the team to beat. Yes I know the Dodgers are a west coast team, don't bring up that point again. The issue isn't about the Giants vs. the Dodgers, it's about the Giants winning the World Series and having the mainstream east coast media not giving them the same credit the Yankees, Redsox, or Phillies would have gotten if they had won the WS.

Listen, I know I'm not going to convince you otherwise, you've already made up your mind and it's not going to change even if the evidence were stapled to your face. But if you'd like to continue this conversation, the common belief on this board is that there IS an east coast bias, how about you prove there isn't one? Show me a prediction after the Yankees swept a team in the World Series were there was some doubt about them even winning a division the next season. You find that in a prominent east coast media source (not in Boston) and I will admit I'm wrong, eventhough I know I'm not.

[sharksrog]

Boagie- I've given you predictions that overwhelmingly support the east coast teams

Rog -- I haven't seen the links to them. And if there are some, so what? There are others that certainly aren't skewed.

I'm not sure it was the first time the East Coast Bias was brought up, but I remember when I posted here about the Washington Nationals and Cincinnati Reds being ranked higher before last season than the Giants that one poster said that was clear evidence of the East Coast Bias.

Or was it?

Both the Nationals and Reds finished the regular season with more wins than the Giants last season. Was the prediction the result of the East Coast Bias -- or simply of good analysis?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1570&page=1#9077#ixzz2LbfLVSQi

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- The Giants won the World Series, they better be #1 right now.

Rog -- Really? I thought projections went forward, not backward.

Using your logic, the 1955 Dodgers (although they didn't win the World Series, but only the National League pennant in 1954) should better have been rated #1 pre-season. Certainly not the Giants, who finished 35 games behind them.

Yet the Giants beat the Dodgers by 5 games, forging a 40-game turnaround between the two.

Don't get me wrong. I pick the Giants to win the NL West this season, and I think the Dodgers may very well be overrated. I can back it up nicely, but it is still my opinion.

Should someone in LA think I am choosing the Giants because I have a San Francisco Bias?

Should the Giants have been rated #1 before the 2011 season, since they won the World Series the year before and would have a full season of Madison Bumgarner in 2011? I think most of us overrated the Giants back then, so what makes us think we're not overrating them now?

By the way, I have some reasons for THAT, too. But while I pick the Giants to win the NL West, I pick the Nationals to have the NL's best record. If you want an example of why, check this out:

The Nationals traded left fielder/first baseman Michael Morse for prospects. They did so because their trade for Denard Span enabled them to move uber prospect Bryce Harper from center field to left, and they didn't have a place for Morse in their lineup.

Morse is expected to bat cleanup for his new team. Morse was just ranked the #84 player in baseball by MLB.com.

Do I agree with the Nationals' trading Morse rather than playing him at first base? Not so sure about that one. My intitial instinct is to say no. But I haven't researched the decision.

The point is though, that the Nationals were confident enough in the players they still have on their roster that they traded a very nice power hitter away, not to fill another need, but for PROSPECTS.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1570&page=1#ixzz2LbgN1Szn

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- We've also heard MANY times about how the Dodgers have upgraded and some now actually consider the Dodgers the team to beat. Yes I know the Dodgers are a west coast team, don't bring up that point again.

Rog -- If I were you, I wouldn't want the point brought up either. The East Coast Bias is somehow shown by someone's picking the Dodgers over the Giants for 2013. Really?

Boagie -- The issue isn't about the Giants vs. the Dodgers, it's about the Giants winning the World Series and having the mainstream east coast media not giving them the same credit the Yankees, Redsox, or Phillies would have gotten if they had won the WS.

Rog -- Given the improvements the Dodgers have made to their team, given that Matt Kemp should be available for the full season this year, and given that the Ellis "brothers" and Luis Cruz established themselves as Dodgers last season. Given that the Dodgers have spent money wildly, including adding the #1 pitching free agent. Given that the Dodgers go 7-deep in proven starting pitchers.

I suspect that only the Yankees of the teams you mentioned above would have withstood the off-season challenge of the Dodgers as well as the Giants have.

We need evidence here, Boagie -- not innuendo that there is an East Coast Bias because some are picking another West Coast team over the Giants.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1570&page=1#ixzz2LbobtLBL

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- Listen, I know I'm not going to convince you otherwise, you've already made up your mind and it's not going to change even if the evidence were stapled to your face.

Rog -- If you truly believe that, you're not as wise as I give you credit for, Boagie. Provide valid, proven evidence, and I have changed my mind many times.

Boagie -- But if you'd like to continue this conversation, the common belief on this board is that there IS an east coast bias, how about you prove there isn't one?

Rog -- It's pretty hard to prove something DOESN'T exist. Give me solid evidence that it does exist, and I'll agree with you. I can't believe you are trying to demonstrate the East Coast Bias with the Dodgers' being picked over the Giants. By definition, that is a false argument.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1570&page=1#ixzz2LbpmLbf3

[Islandboagie]

espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs/2012/story/_/id/8544168/espn-expert-predictions

[Islandboagie]

GIANTS NOT BUILT FOR OCTOBER
The sad fact is that San Francisco is not equipped to win it all
By Paul Swydan (ESPN Insider)

The San Francisco Giants will finish the regular season ranked in the top 10 of the ESPN Power Rankings for the eighth straight week, and in 16 of the final 17. The Giants finished with three straight fifth-place rankings, the highest they have been ranked this season. And still, the Giants have no chance of winning the World Series.

The Giants have played well this season, and they have been red hot in September, but they are a thin team that has feasted on inferior competition. Buster Posey is one of the best players in baseball, and Matt Cain and Madison Bumgarner are top-30 pitchers. But outside of that, the quality dips quickly.

[Islandboagie]

espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/31521/power-rankings-nationals-reds-1-2

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs/2012/story/_/id/8544168/espn-expert-predictions

Rog -- Thank you for the attempt to show the East Coast Bias here, Boagie. I enjoyed reading it.

But where is the East Coast Bias? IIRC the Tigers were clear favorites to win the Series. I thought Dave Cameron (whose work I really admire, even when I don't agree with it) put it best when he talked about Justin Verlander vs. Barry Zito -- TWICE.

Below is a reference to NBC Bay Area's "The Cove," which says one basically had to bet $100 on the Tigers to win $60. "The Cove" talks about Verlander's potentially pitching three times if needed.

The commentators you pointed to backed their predictions with their reputation. Gamblers backed their predictions with their money. Both groups heavily favored the Tigers.

And why wouldn't they? The Tigers had just swept the Yankees, while the Giants had nearly been eliminated not once but TWICE.

I know I felt going into the World Series that the Giants would need to win at least three games against Tigers starters not named Verlander -- and probably four.

Was what you showed here to back up your concept of the East Coast Bias truly bias -- or merely an informed analysis of the facts available at the time?

Again, I do appreciate your making the effort to back up your claim. There were a lot of writers involved in the ESPN poll, and they certainly did favor the Tigers. But so did the gamblers, whose only bias was money.

www.nbcbayarea.com/blogs/the-cove/2012-World-Series-O...

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- GIANTS NOT BUILT FOR OCTOBER
The sad fact is that San Francisco is not equipped to win it all
By Paul Swydan (ESPN Insider)

The San Francisco Giants will finish the regular season ranked in the top 10 of the ESPN Power Rankings for the eighth straight week, and in 16 of the final 17. The Giants finished with three straight fifth-place rankings, the highest they have been ranked this season. And still, the Giants have no chance of winning the World Series.

The Giants have played well this season, and they have been red hot in September, but they are a thin team that has feasted on inferior competition. Buster Posey is one of the best players in baseball, and Matt Cain and Madison Bumgarner are top-30 pitchers. But outside of that, the quality dips quickly.

Rog -- I think the writer gave short shrift here to Ryan Vogelsong (although in their defense, Vogey fell apart for several weeks in August and September), but where is the East Coast Bias?

I kind of get the feeling that if an analysis doesn't agree with yours, it MUST be because of the East Coast Bias.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1570&page=1#ixzz2LeIR0KQs

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_....ionals-reds-1-2

Rog -- Again, I applaud your providing concrete backup for your opinion about the East Coast Bias. And I certainly would have the Giants in my own top 10 ranking. I'd probably have them in the top 5.

But where is the East Coast Bias? Schoenfield specifically addresses why he left the Giants out of his top 10. And his reasons weren't bad. He also said a rebound by Tim Lincecum could make them better than his prediction.

So where is the bias?

By the way, Schoenfield is the guy who did an analysis of the draft lotteries, which began in 1985. He showed the top 10 draft picks -- and who would have been the top 10 if the draft had been held after each player completed his career.

Now, the Warriors are one of the most ignored teams in the NBA. They went over a decade and a half without a SINGLE All-Star pick.

But when Schoenfield goes back and analyzes the 1988 and 1989 drafts, he says the #1 pick in those drafts would have been Mitch Richmond (1988) and Tim Hardaway (1989). Really, does that sound like a guy with an East Coast bias?

Would you like to tell me what I think the real situation is? Probably not, but I think I'll tell you anyway.

Four factors, none of which is bias, could enter into the perception of an East Coast Bias.

. The way the earth spins on its axis makes it much easier to follow the East Coast than the West Coast. Fact of life -- not a bias.

. Two-thirds of the population of the US lives in the Eastern Time zone. Fact of life -- not a bias.

. In the American League, only five of 15 teams -- the Angels, Mariners, A's, Astros and Rangers -- would be considered more West Coast than East Coast.

. In the NL, only five of 15 teams -- the Giants, Dodgers, Rockies, Padres and Diamondbacks -- would be considered more West Coast than East Coast.

So what we've got is two-thirds of the US watching a game where two-thirds of the teams could be considered East Coast teams, and watching the game in a much easier time frame to watch.

Maybe that makes the less than one-third of the US in the West watching just one-third of the teams that are West Coast teams from a time zone that makes watching East Coast games difficult just a little bit jealous.

[Islandboagie]

I kind of get the feeling that if an analysis doesn't agree with yours, it MUST be because of the East Coast Bias.

Boagie- I get the feeling if an analyst doesn't agree with me, it's probably means I'm right. Which all the evidence I've given points to exactly that.

I've given quotes from people inside the media claiming there IS a bias for east coast teams. People from ESPN said it. Joe Buck, one of the biggest names in sports broadcasting admitted to a bias for east coast teams because that's where the money is. I've given you examples of a bias..23 of 28 ESPN analysts predicted Detroit to win the WS, eventhough the Giants handed the Tigers their ass. This is enough eye witness testimony and evidence for a conviction in court.

But no, they don't know what they're talking about. You and your ONE power ranking have proven there is no bias in ANY media outlet in the country. I applaud you for your logical thinking and open mind to this topic.

[allenreed]

After having given this a somewhat limited amount of thought, this came to mind. What makes you think the media wants to give an accurate representation of which teams are best? The media in this country is both incompetent, and hopelessly corrupt. They are no longer interested in reporting the news accurately, or fairly. Journalistic standards have fallen by the wayside and been replaced by people who are more interested in ratings and pushing their own agenda. In sports, it's merely annoying. In real news, it's dangerous. We saw it in the last election, where the winner was chosen in large measure by a hopelessly corrupt media who had no standards or scruples when it came to their election coverage. Hi there Candy Crowley!
But keeping this in a sports frame of mind, I think it would be wise to understand what the sports media is doing. They promote the east coast teams because that's where the money is. Yankees- Red Sox makes money. That's where the ratings are. A Dodger rebirth also makes money, so they're hoping for that. The media isn't interested in giving the Giants their due. There not interested in giving the viewer a fair and accurate description of what's happening. They're interested in making money,

[sharksrog]

Boagie- I get the feeling if an analyst doesn't agree with me, it's probably means I'm right.

Rog -- And there you have it. The anti-analyst bias.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1570&page=1#9095#ixzz2LemZGTlR

[sharksrog]

Allen -- The media isn't interested in giving the Giants their due. There not interested in giving the viewer a fair and accurate description of what's happening. They're interested in making money,

Rog -- The three are mutually exclusive?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1570&page=1#ixzz2LemwWjO2

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- I applaud you for your logical thinking and open mind to this topic.

Rog -- Hey, you and Randy could be right here. Depending whether one defines bias as a preference or inclination that inhibits impartial judgment or as simply a skewing of results, you probably are to a degree.

But I'm not seeing convincing evidence of it -- although I will say such evidence would be tough to come by even if it existed.

One thing I will say is that with the Giants having the #1 manager, the #1 catcher, the #2 relief pitcher and the #5 GM in the MLB Network voting, I'm not seeing an East Coast Bias in that situation.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1570&page=1#ixzz2LenCrddV

[allenreed]

Pretty much. As much as we like the Giants here, they're not one of sports' elite franchises, say like Yankees, Red Sox, Cowboys, Celtics, Lakers. Those, and some others I may have missed, are the teams the media is going to promote. That's where the money is.

[sharksrog]

Allen -- As much as we like the Giants here, they're not one of sports' elite franchises, say like Yankees, Red Sox, Cowboys, Celtics, Lakers. Those, and some others I may have missed, are the teams the media is going to promote. That's where the money is.

Rog -- If the Giants keep winning World Series, they'll make it back into that group. Up through about 1954 I think there were in the group.

I would add the 49ers to the group you mentioned, although it might be said that they are still rebounding back into the mix. It would seem the Cubs are in there too. Aren't they considered to be the most popular of the baseball franchises?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1570&page=1#9109#ixzz2Lf0pqPN4

[allenreed]

I would say the Giants might have been in there through the 60s, due to their plethora of HOF quality stars (Mays, McCovey, Marichal, Cepeda, Perry). They vanished from the list when the team went downhill in the late 70s, early 80s.

The Niners were there during the Montana/Rice years. I'm not sure they're back yet. The Raiders and Steelers were there in their heyday too. But those teams are transitory to the list. The ones I mentioned are always there, even when they don't do well.

I would imagine the Yankees are the most popular baseball franchise, with the Red Sox a fairly distant second. The Cubs are unique in that they're followed closely by many despite having almost no success.

[Islandboagie]

Allen -- As much as we like the Giants here, they're not one of sports' elite franchises, say like Yankees, Red Sox, Cowboys, Celtics, Lakers. Those, and some others I may have missed, are the teams the media is going to promote. That's where the money is.

Boagie- Agreed. It's not just a pure east coast bias, although an east coast bias does exist amongst the easterners. But you make a good point about the Lakers and Cowboys among other non-east coast teams getting alot of media interest. I think the Dodgers and Angels also fit in this category. Perhaps it should be called the large market bias..Either way the mainstream media doesn't give enough credit to the Giants for winning 2 out of 3.

[allenreed]

Which goes back to what I said before. For the most part the media goes where the money is. They have no interest in accurately reporting what's happening. True in both sports and real news.

[sharksrog]

Allen -- For the most part the media goes where the money is.

Rog -- If you're talking about say National TV, why WOULDN'T they televise the games that are going to get the most viewership? In some ways, the lesser teams are lucky to get on National TV at all.

Allen -- They have no interest in accurately reporting what's happening.

Rog -- Now that's one of the stupidest things that has been said here. With TV, we get to see with our own eyes what is happening.

What would be the advantage to a Network of NOT accurately reporting what it happening?

A philosophical question here: There are plenty of things wrong -- or at the very least, questionable -- with the world. But shouldn't we examine ourselves and try to clean up our own acts before or at least simultaneously with being so critical?

Ask yourself this, Allen: Is it possible you too often take the position that you have all the answers and the rest of the world is wrong? If everything were so black-and-white, wouldn't almost everyone -- or at least those who are smartest, most discerning and wisest -- think the same way?

My own feeling is that the world would be a better place if people kept more open minds, were more willing to compromise, and tried harder to work together. We talk here about the importance of chemistry. Isn't that pretty much what chemistry is all about?

If you truly think the media doesn't care about the truth, you can make your own protest by not watching, listening or reading.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1570&page=1#9115#ixzz2Lpwb1qcf

[allenreed]

Rog -- If you're talking about say National TV, why WOULDN'T they televise the games that are going to get the most viewership? In some ways, the lesser teams are lucky to get on National TV at all.

Allen- Not really talking about televising the games themselves, Rog. Once again you seem to be choosing to misunderstand in order to provoke an argument. I'm talking about the coverage on the highlights, and the analysis.
Supposedly, these shows are supposed to cover baseball in its entirety, not just a few teams. As for "lesser" teams, both KC and the Pirates won more games than Boston last year. Who got more coverage? Why do you think that is?

Allen -- They have no interest in accurately reporting what's happening.

Rog -- Now that's one of the stupidest things that has been said here. With TV, we get to see with our own eyes what is happening.

Allen- You're retort is surely one of the stupidest I have seen here Rog. Again, we're talking about commentary and analysis, not the games themselves. This ignoranance ploy isn't working Rog, we know you're better than that. Step up your game.

What would be the advantage to a Network of NOT accurately reporting what it happening?

Allen- Obviously, to promote viewership and attain ratings, and possibly to promote the agenda of the network or those in charge of it. Though that would probably hold true more in real news than in sports.
But even there, you don't think most of the people in charge at ESPN are either Yankee or Red Sox fans? How much more coverage do the Giants/Jets/Pats get on ESPN than the other teams?


Ask yourself this, Allen: Is it possible you too often take the position that you have all the answers and the rest of the world is wrong? If everything were so black-and-white, wouldn't almost everyone -- or at least those who are smartest, most discerning and wisest -- think the same way?

Allen- Not necessarily. The American public is tragically uninformed, if not downright stupid. The last election proved that. The media is hopelessly corrupt, and misinforms the public on a regular basis. They select what stories to cover and how to cover them due to their own personal agenda, paying little attention to what actually occured.
Do I have all the answers? Of course not. If I did, I wouldn't be sitting here typing this. Sadly, for our country at this point, there may be no answers. The damage done in the last four years may be too great to overcome.


If you truly think the media doesn't care about the truth, you can make your own protest by not watching, listening or reading.

Allen- Problem there is, you then run the risk of not having any information at all, which is the trap many in our country have fallen into. Couldn't tell you a thing about Benghazi or what happened there, but can name all the Kardashians.
I think that what you have to do is distill what you're reading, and understand who is writing it and why. What agenda they're trying to push. With sports, if you watch ESPN or MLB Network (though less so there) you have to undrstand why you're getting so much Yankees/ Red Sox coverage.
There used to be standards in journalism, just as there used to be standards in government and in human behavior. Sadly, there just aren't anymore.

[sharksrog]

Rog -- If you're talking about say National TV, why WOULDN'T they televise the games that are going to get the most viewership? In some ways, the lesser teams are lucky to get on National TV at all.

Allen- Not really talking about televising the games themselves, Rog. Once again you seem to be choosing to misunderstand in order to provoke an argument. I'm talking about the coverage on the highlights, and the analysis.

Rog -- Then why not say so? I wasn't choosing to misunderstand. You painted with a very broad brush.

Allen -- Supposedly, these shows are supposed to cover baseball in its entirety, not just a few teams. As for "lesser" teams, both KC and the Pirates won more games than Boston last year. Who got more coverage? Why do you think that is?

Rog -- Yes. Let's examine just that.

The Red Sox have been a perrenial contender -- and the second half of what many view as the biggest rival in baseball. The Pirates and Royals have been pretty bad for a long time.

How many fans care about either of those teams? Not very many, unfortunately. They're just not very well know. The Pirates began to get more play -- then fell apart the second half.
Can't really say about the Royals. I was aware of their left fielder Gordon, who I believe was the #1 pick overall. And do they also have Hosmer, another high draft pick who is a very good prospect?

They had the minor league player of the year, but they traded him for James Shields and another pitcher I believe. They play in a later time zone, which limits their coverage.

You should realize that when these shows are put together, often the late time zone night games aren't over yet. That limits their coverage, particularly when the show is taped.

I don't care whether the Pirates or Royals are on TV. Not many outside their immediate areas are. I don't even care if the Giants are on national TV. I'd just as soon watch them on CSN Bay Area.

As for your comment that the media doesn't care about the truth, that isn't affected by whether they show the Pirates and Royals or not.

Enjoy life, Allen.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1570&page=1#9128#ixzz2Lq91z5zZ

[allenreed]

You just reiterated what I've been saying Rog. The "east coast bias" is just the networks going after ratings. Many here have stated that they feel the Giants don't get alot of coverage because they're disrespected, of people underrate them. I think it's just that outside of the Bay Area, or maybe Northern CA, the networks feel that not that many people care.
The Red Sox have been a perennial contender?! They went 86 years between rings, and haven't finished above third since 2009. Last year they won just 69 games.
Time zone? The Pirates are in the Eastern time zone. KC is in the Central, one hour later.
The networks don't care about presenting baseball in it's entirety. or even giving an accurate portrayal of it. They care about ratings, which means they care about money. In that respect, they don't care about the truth. It's even more glaring when one ventures into real news.

[sfgdood]

Dude, you're posting as much or more about the East Coast Bias/lack thereof than any other subject. Why is it THAT important to you? It doesnt even involve stats! Give it a rest already!

~Dood

[allenreed]

Dude, I thought you were the Dood. Apologies to Jeff Bridges, of course.