ESPN Sucks

[snapple]

Alright, there are 1,000 places for me to start. Here we go:

This is a rant on 2 hours of sleep whilst bored at work. Thank you, brother. I fucking hate your dog. The 12 pack of beer and use of your car was not enough of payment while you and your family were out of town.

ESPN sucks.

Okay, this is from the view of a baseball fan who kind of dabbles around other sports. Last summer, the NFL lockout was going on. I spent 8 hours watching ESPN a day, four days out of the week for some research (I had injured my arm, couldn't work). They spent more time talking about the lockout than they did about baseball and other sports combined. The baseball season was in full swing for God's sake! I get it, the lockout is a big deal, but come the fuck on.

With baseball, none of the commentators get it. W/L, ERA and WHIP for pitching stats. BA, HR, RBI and sb for batting (lucky if you get obp). With hitting, it's hard to get into advanced stuff. But pitching isn't that bad. MLB Network is trying to incorporate new statistics into all of their programs. They're using some still pretty unreliable measures, but fuck it. They're moving in the right direction.

Olney and Kurkjian are alright. The latter being the better of the two. I've just found that I can't stand watching this channel anymore. It's literally worse than wedding planning. It's worse than listening to Courtney talk about stupid shit in excruciating detail that I don't give two solid fucks about but, I have to listen. It's worse than listening to politicians.

ESPN, you are the worst.

[senecadawg2]

Soccer is rarely ever acknowledged on ESPN, even when there are big games going on. All they care about is Basketball and Football. Of course this is less of a problem for me, because I think baseball is asinine.

[snapple]

Soccer is rarely ever acknowledged on ESPN, even when there are big games going on. All they care about is Basketball and Football. Of course this is less of a problem for me, because I think baseball is asinine.

You're asinine but even with football, the coverage is weak at best.

[KevShmev]

They spent far more time this week talking about Tim Tebow than they did about Peyton Manning or about the Saints.  Yes, ESPN sucks.

[antigoon]

The Powers That Be cut out of local programming to show Tebow's plane landing in New York. There's no escaping it

[KevShmev]

What a shock.

Really, I blame ESPN for Tebow being as polarizing as he is.  They talk about him so much that those who do not like him already like him even less because they get tired of hearing about him.  Plus, it's the whole "Is he really a good enough NFL player to warrant this kind of coverage?" thing, and the answer is obviously no.  Sure, he was probably one of the greatest college players ever, but do they really need to talk about him non-stop like he is the greatest thing ever?  And I say that as someone who likes Tebow (I am probably one of the few who doesn't have an extreme opinion about him either way).

[LieLowTheWantedMan]

I don't even have ESPN and I know they blow.

[juice]

I never knew how much into football ESPN was until I started hanging around the TVs at my university where there is always ESPN on at least one.  It seems like they're always trying to talk about football no matter what time of the year.

[KevShmev]

What is really sad is, as much time as they dedicate to football, their game highlights are often pathetic now.  I get that not everyone wants to see a 2-minute highlight of a meaningless Bills/Seahawks game in Week 14, but wrapping them up in 20 seconds and then having your analysts babble for 10 minutes is stupid.  It is sad how much they skimp on game highlights now, given how much overall time the network dedicates to football. 

[snapple]

I like football, but goddamn.

[King Postwhore]

Not that I disagree with you all about ESPN but if you don't like it........CHANGE THE STATION!!

[TheOutlawXanadu]

As a huge basketball fan, ESPN's NBA coverage also sucks. I'm not talking about quantity here; I'm talking about quality. Jon Barry is about the most unlikeable analyst on television, Magic Johnson is awful in front of the camera, and Jalen Rose uses arguments so simplistic you'd think he was a drunk college kid. Mark Jackson was also horrible as a color commentator.

[Dimitrius]

Hand down, MAAAAAAAAAAN down!

[Bacong]

https://deadspin.com/5875622/espn-broke-its-own-record-by-making-160-tim-tebow-references-in-one-hour-of-sportscenter-here-are-all-of-them

[Bacong]

also this

https://deadspin.com/statistical-analysis-of-sportscenter/

[GuineaPig]

Sports journalism sucks.  It's just a non-stop barrage of fallacies and incredibly superficial "analysis."

[King Postwhore]

Well I thing in general all journalism has changed for the worst.  The old beat writers wouldn't post some of the shenanigans of the players and now it's a TMZ world and that goes for the New and sports.

[orcus116]

Getting rid of Joe Morgan was best thing they ever did. For a HOF caliber player he sure as hell demonstrated how little he's paid attention to the evolution of the game.

[snapple]

https://deadspin.com/5875622/espn-broke-its-own-record-by-making-160-tim-tebow-references-in-one-hour-of-sportscenter-here-are-all-of-them

Thank you based Fielder avatar.

[TheOutlawXanadu]

Sports journalism sucks.  It's just a non-stop barrage of fallacies and incredibly superficial "analysis."

It's amazing how - as noted above - so many sports analysts completely reject the use of useful statistics. I'm not even talking about saber metrics here; I'm simply talking about stuff like late game FG%. Every single time the question is asked, "Who is the best clutch shooter in the NBA?", someone should cite statistics. There's no more room for answers like, "Kobe Bryant because he... uh... makes a bunch".

[snapple]

Sports journalism sucks.  It's just a non-stop barrage of fallacies and incredibly superficial "analysis."

It's amazing how - as noted above - so many sports analysts completely reject the use of useful statistics. I'm not even talking about saber metrics here; I'm simply talking about stuff like late game FG%. Every single time the question is asked, "Who is the best clutch shooter in the NBA?", someone should cite statistics. There's no more room for answers like, "Kobe Bryant because he... uh... makes a bunch".

Yeah. I left strikeouts in the pitching stuff.

But there are a few stats that aren't really indicative to a player in baseball, but are commonly used by ESPN/commentators as such:

Pitching W/L (however a loss is more accurate. Well, in the sense that if you play black jack enough, you might win a hand)
RBI (RBIs tell more of your batting order, not how good the bat is)
R (more on who is batting)

Then there are stats that have some value, but it's ignorant to think they actually are the end all stat to measure a pitcher/player:

ERA
K (I'm going to catch shit for that. How about AJ Burnett?)
BA

Well, it doesn't seem like a lot, but those are 6 statistics that are measured. And you know what? They show a complete lack of ignorance on ESPN's part. On MLB Network broadcasts, they mention things like OBP (and to SOME degree on ESPN), K/9, BB/9, BABIP (that tickled my dick when I heard a reference to that) and others. While it's hard to measure everything, there is no reason to not mention some of it. K/9 is NOT hard to explain.

[TAC]

I stopped watching ESPN a long time ago. They do suck. I hate being told who to root for. The glorification of the athletes is sickening.

Also, if they don't broadcast it, they don't promote it. Their hockey coverage is deplorable.

[GuineaPig]

Sports journalism sucks.  It's just a non-stop barrage of fallacies and incredibly superficial "analysis."

It's amazing how - as noted above - so many sports analysts completely reject the use of useful statistics. I'm not even talking about saber metrics here; I'm simply talking about stuff like late game FG%. Every single time the question is asked, "Who is the best clutch shooter in the NBA?", someone should cite statistics. There's no more room for answers like, "Kobe Bryant because he... uh... makes a bunch".

Most sports "analysis" falls into one of four categories:

1. the ecological fallacy
2. fundamental attribution error
3. confirmation bias
4. something to do with a fundamental lack of understanding about sample size, like the hot-hand fallacy

[lonestar]

I think it's almost fair to say that ESPN is slowly becoming the MTV of sports television.  Just need a few more reality shows.

[MetalJunkie]

Like something from a video game, this graphic from The New York Times shows the most mentioned NFL players and coaches this season. Players are scaled approximately by the number of mentions between August 1, 2011 to February 1, 2012 on ESPN's SportCenter and Sunday NFL Countdown. The giant on the left is Tim Tebow, with 1,450 mentions. Bar graphs on the bottom highlight mentions over time for players of interest.

[Dr. DTVT]

I think it's almost fair to say that ESPN is slowly becoming the MTV of sports television.  Just need a few more reality shows.

They already have those.

[snapple]

That's why he said more.

Also, it's ridiculous that Tebow got that many mentions.

[TheOutlawXanadu]

I don't know much of anything about baseball, but it always struck me as nonsensical to talk about W/L records for pitchers. If Pitcher A has a 5 - 5 record and Pitcher B has a 9 - 1 record, but Pitcher A gives up less hits and runs, then is his worse W/L record something to be held against him? What if the offense on Pitcher A's team simply blows?

A simplistic example, but I think it illustrates my point.

[snapple]

I don't know much of anything about baseball, but it always struck me as nonsensical to talk about W/L records for pitchers. Pitcher A has a 5 - 5 record and Pitcher B has a 9 - 1 record, but Pitcher A gives up less hits and runs, then is his worse W/L record something to be held against him (as retards believe). The offense on Pitcher A's team simply blows.

A simplistic example, but I think it illustrates my point.

I changed the questions into statements that prove the point.

[GuineaPig]

I don't know much of anything about baseball, but it always struck me as nonsensical to talk about W/L records for pitchers. If Pitcher A has a 5 - 5 record and Pitcher B has a 9 - 1 record, but Pitcher A gives up less hits and runs, then is his worse W/L record something to be held against him? What if the offense on Pitcher A's team simply blows?

A simplistic example, but I think it illustrates my point.

But winners win, and losers lose.  C'mon.  This is like Sports 101.

[King Postwhore]

Unfortunately, I think teams do these kind of stats now too, (sabermetrics) and it's bleds into the TV analysis too.

[snapple]

I don't know much of anything about baseball, but it always struck me as nonsensical to talk about W/L records for pitchers. If Pitcher A has a 5 - 5 record and Pitcher B has a 9 - 1 record, but Pitcher A gives up less hits and runs, then is his worse W/L record something to be held against him? What if the offense on Pitcher A's team simply blows?

A simplistic example, but I think it illustrates my point.

But winners win, and losers lose.  C'mon.  This is like Sports 101.

[snapple]

Unfortunately, I think teams do these kind of stats now too, (sabermetrics) and it's bleds into the TV analysis too.

Not on ESPN so much. Plus, they're pretty stupid.

[King Postwhore]

Come on now.  They have those stupid stats all over the place.  Over analyzing.  they do have 24 hours to talk sports you know, so they tend to have a lot of fluff on air.

[Dimitrius]

Unfortunately, I think teams do these kind of stats now too, (sabermetrics) and it's bleds into the TV analysis too.

Some of them should because they ARE better metrics to measure a players value! WAR, OPS, FIP, xFIP, DRS, UZR/150 (to name a few) should all be use more regularly by sportscasters, not just by fantasy analysts and/or nerds.