PDA

View Full Version : MLB Network: Root for Giants-Phils



lollipopcurve
10-04-2010, 08:57 AM
I was surprised this AM to hear the 4-headed panel on MLB Network's "Path to the Pennant" extravanganza close their show by openly rooting for a Phils-Giants NLCS. What with all the stud pitchers and bicoastal demographics. There was a token nod to how seeing the Braves advance would be OK, due to the Bobby Cox factor, but there was no mention of the Reds. None.

So, ESPN style, MLB Network, perhaps in a weak moment, can't help but relegate our Reds to 2nd class postseason citizenry in flyover country.

westofyou
10-04-2010, 09:16 AM
It's a better pitching match up, a team (Giants) that hasn't won a WS in their SF existence and a team looking to be the 1st NL team in 3 straight WS for 1st time in almost 60 years.

Not everything is a direct dig at the Reds or Ohio, it's quite possible that others want to see something that the Reds fans don't. Both of those teams have fan bases too as well, if they mention the Reds (who are arguably the weakest team of teh division winners) someone else's feelings would be hurt I suppose.

lollipopcurve
10-04-2010, 09:31 AM
It's a better pitching match up, a team (Giants) that hasn't won a WS in their SF existence and a team looking to be the 1st NL team in 3 straight WS for 1st time in almost 60 years.

Not everything is a direct dig at the Reds or Ohio, it's quite possible that others want to see something that the Reds fans don't. Both of those teams have fan bases too as well, if they mention the Reds (who are arguably the weakest team of teh division winners) someone else's feelings would be hurt I suppose.

I understand all of this. I did not say it was a direct dig. However, as it is the network of MLB, the MLB Network should be careful to foreground the Championship Series contests, not opinionate about which outcomes would be best. Objectivity over subjectivity. Simple journalistic concept, no?

blumj
10-04-2010, 09:34 AM
The Phillies are currently occupying the place in the media universe that's usually reserved for the Yankees. Whoever played them first was going to seem like something of an afterthought, and any team that eliminates them is going to get a tremendous amount of credit.

blumj
10-04-2010, 09:36 AM
I understand all of this. I did not say it was a direct dig. However, as it is the network of MLB, the MLB Network should be careful to foreground the Championship Series contests, not opinionate about which outcomes would be best. Objectivity over subjectivity. Simple journalistic concept, no?
They're not journalists, they work for MLB.

lollipopcurve
10-04-2010, 09:39 AM
They're not journalists, they work for MLB.

So, OK for them to suggest it's best that the Phillies and Giants win?

westofyou
10-04-2010, 09:47 AM
So, OK for them to suggest it's best that the Phillies and Giants win?

Sure, if that's what THEY might want to see, they aren't automaton's

blumj
10-04-2010, 09:48 AM
So, OK for them to suggest it's best that the Phillies and Giants win?
It might not be the best use of their air time, but it's pretty obvious, isn't it?

lollipopcurve
10-04-2010, 09:49 AM
The Phillies are currently occupying the place in the media universe that's usually reserved for the Yankees. Whoever played them first was going to seem like something of an afterthought, and any team that eliminates them is going to get a tremendous amount of credit.

Yes, something of an afterthought. In this instance, and given it's an isolated one, the Reds were not only an afterthought in that they were the only of 4 teams not deemed worthy of having a storyline you could get behind, but the panel's moderator found it necessary to tell viewers it would be preferable to see them lose. I mean, he came out and said it, in so many words.

I realize this is media nitpicking. It won't be like that all week long. They'll get their act together and develop storylines for each series that will do a better job of preparing the stage for the drama that will ensue, whether some of the people reporting on it wish it would skip to the next act or not.

As a Reds fan, I just expected a better approach from that network. Perhaps I shouldn't.

westofyou
10-04-2010, 09:51 AM
As a Reds fan, I just expected a better approach from that network. Perhaps I shouldn't.

Stick Casey and Larkin in the panel and you might get a different take, but as it is I am not surprised.

lollipopcurve
10-04-2010, 09:58 AM
Stick Casey and Larkin in the panel and you might get a different take, but as it is I am not surprised.

Very true. And I expect those guys will get their shot. I do find it somewhat interesting Larkin and Casey have been openly and repeatedly roasted by other guys on the panel for having a bias. As if singing the praises of the Reds cannot be objective in and of itself. I have not seen any of the other talking heads ribbed for being partial (I certainly may have missed it, as I don't watch MLB Network all that much)) -- yet I would guess that all of the ex-players identify themselves with a particular uniform or two and naturally favor those teams, with varying degrees of subtlety, in their "analysis."

It's no big deal. It's just US against THE WORLD.

lollipopcurve
10-04-2010, 10:02 AM
It might not be the best use of their air time, but it's pretty obvious, isn't it?

What's obvious?

lollipopcurve
10-04-2010, 10:06 AM
Sure, if that's what THEY might want to see, they aren't automaton's

I think the panel moderator needs to be objective in order to give their product legitimacy in providing "analysis" of the matchups.

blumj
10-04-2010, 10:08 AM
Very true. And I expect those guys will get their shot. I do find it somewhat interesting Larkin and Casey have been openly and repeatedly roasted by other guys on the panel for having a bias. As if singing the praises of the Reds cannot be objective in and of itself. I have not seen any of the other talking heads ribbed for being partial (I certainly may have missed it, as I don't watch MLB Network all that much)) -- yet I would guess that all of the ex-players identify themselves with a particular uniform or two and naturally favor those teams, with varying degrees of subtlety, in their "analysis."

It's no big deal. It's just US against THE WORLD.
Casey and Larkin do come off a little more Hawk Harrelson-ish than most of them, to me, but that's their personalities. But it's not exactly a secret which teams most of them favor.

lollipopcurve
10-04-2010, 10:14 AM
But it's not exactly a secret which teams most of them favor.

I did not know that. Any of the talking heads beyond Larkin and Casey still have "their" teams in the hunt? Mitch Williams, Phillies?

I'll look forward to any interplay between "analysis" and "bias" in the reporting over the next few days....

traderumor
10-04-2010, 10:15 AM
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/354842/Rodney_Dangerfield.jpg

lollipopcurve
10-04-2010, 10:16 AM
I believe that's Rodney's Reds tie.

Heath
10-04-2010, 10:18 AM
No offense to Matt Vasgersian, but anyone with XFL Broadcaster as a career highlight has lost some credibility.

I thought last nights Pennant Race was the B team. I mean Billy Ripken? Tom Verducci? Last night should have been Peter Gammons and Joe Magraine.

However, it was InfinityPlus better than ESPN's baseball tonight. John Kruk needs to wipe the mustard stains from his shirt.

traderumor
10-04-2010, 10:19 AM
I believe that's Rodney's Reds tie.Yup, the wishbone C is hidden under his hand pulling up the tie. :)

blumj
10-04-2010, 10:42 AM
I did not know that. Any of the talking heads beyond Larkin and Casey still have "their" teams in the hunt? Mitch Williams, Phillies?

I'll look forward to any interplay between "analysis" and "bias" in the reporting over the next few days....
Joe Magrane-Rays, Leiter-Yankees, Ripken and Hart-Rangers, Smoltz is obvious, Kaat-Twins. Some of them played for other teams that are still in it, but are or have recently been broadcasters for those teams.

Homer Bailey
10-04-2010, 10:52 AM
This isn't college football. The amount of press you get literally has nothing to do with the final outcome.

blumj
10-04-2010, 10:55 AM
No offense to Matt Vasgersian, but anyone with XFL Broadcaster as a career highlight has lost some credibility.

I thought last nights Pennant Race was the B team. I mean Billy Ripken? Tom Verducci? Last night should have been Peter Gammons and Joe Magraine.

However, it was InfinityPlus better than ESPN's baseball tonight. John Kruk needs to wipe the mustard stains from his shirt.
Some of them may have been committed to individual teams end of season post-game shows. I know Gammons was on NESN, the rest is just guessing, but it wouldn't surprise me if Leiter was on YES, Magrane could have been doing the Rays show, etc.

reds1869
10-04-2010, 11:23 AM
Some of them may have been committed to individual teams end of season post-game shows. I know Gammons was on NESN, the rest is just guessing, but it wouldn't surprise me if Leiter was on YES, Magrane could have been doing the Rays show, etc.

Vasgersian is also a former Padres announcer. All of the guys on that network have strong ties to various clubs. After watching the replay of the show this morning, I didn't take the Phils-Giants comment as a dig at the Reds at all. Should the Reds be eliminated, I would thoroughly enjoy a SF-PHI showdown. As a neutral it would be by far the most interesting matchup and that is exactly what they were alluding to. The love given by everyoe on the broadcast to Votto shows that there is no inherent bias against the Reds.

kaldaniels
10-04-2010, 11:46 AM
I'm not outraged by it. Take the Reds out of the equation and that's the matchup I'd like to see. It's bulletin board material anyways.

Roy Tucker
10-04-2010, 12:09 PM
I didn't see it so I can't really comment.

What I'd expect from MLB Network is 90% of the show be an equal-handed analyses of the NL and AL Division Series (breakdowns of starters, relievers, lineups, bench, managers, etc.).

And then 10% be a "who do you think will win/who do you want to win".

lollipopcurve
10-04-2010, 12:21 PM
The love given by everyoe on the broadcast to Votto shows that there is no inherent bias against the Reds.

Disagree. "This guy's good, but the team.... forget the team." That's how I hear it, at least.

I think there hasn't been a lot of thinking about the Reds as a team. Votto's been a story. Chapman's been a story. But the team, not really. I've heard several comments about how the Cards *should* have won the division. Nothing about how we might be seeing a changing of the guard. We'll see if they can develop a storyline around the team that does justice to what unquestionably has been a significant turnaround, and a turnaround that very well may have legs for a few years....

edabbs44
10-05-2010, 07:33 AM
Human nature, once Cincy takes care of some business then we'll see the tables turn.

MikeS21
10-05-2010, 09:32 AM
Human nature, once Cincy takes care of some business then we'll see the tables turn.
Absolutely. The Reds have to prove they belong with the big boys. Winning the NL Central isn't that big of an achievement, considering the way all those teams beat up on each other. But the Reds struggled mightily against first and second place teams outside their division.

If the Reds somehow manage to squeeze past Philly, they will get plenty of attention - although some media will blame it on Philly choking rather than the Reds winning.