ESPN Sucks

[snapple]

I don't like WAR xFIP/FIP

[Dimitrius]

WAR is a bit... strange, since different people use different equations for it (for example: baseball-reference.com and fangraphs.com).

I like FIP/xFIP because since it only uses things the pitcher can control, I believe it's a better measure than ERA.

[Bacong]

I don't trust WAR. Some people use it as the most important stat. Fuck that.

FIP I do trust.

[snapple]

I don't trust WAR. Some people use it as the most important stat. Fuck that.

FIP I do trust.

FIP is just basically what you should expect a pitcher's ERA to be.

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

ESPN is terrible. Grantland, however, is awesome.

Also, if you're in north Texas, it's great to listen to The Ticket.

[j]

Also, if you're in north Texas, it's great to listen to The Ticket.

 

I like PTI too, and sometimes Around the Horn (the format of the show sucks, but they have some good analysts).  Other than that, I could do without most of ESPN's amateur analysis.

And although I feel nothing but hatred for Texas Tech, the Craig James-Mike Leach debacle and the way it was "handled" really solidified my negative opinion of the network.

-J

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

@j

good luck.

with your bottom.

[antigoon]

Grantland, however, is awesome.

Word.

[TheOutlawXanadu]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebvLPKsPrUM

This here is a prime example of what is wrong with ESPN. The analysts are asked to rank the top five NBA players, and LeBron James makes neither of their lists.

The rationale for Stephen's list is: There's one game. 48 minutes. I need to win that game. Who do I go with?

There are some major problems with this rationale, the most obvious one being that the NBA season is not one game long. The NBA season is an 82 game marathon plus playoffs. It doesn't matter who gives you the best chance to win one game. That's a completely useless scenario.

Both guys also mention a player's ability to close as being a major factor. This is an even bigger issue with ESPN: It's getting to the point where the criteria for evaluating basketball players is basically whether they are likely to play well with two minutes left in a close game. The importance of the regular season has turned to nothing. You can have a guy like LeBron James be clearly the best player during the season and through the first three rounds of the playoffs and then just because he plays like shit in the Finals he doesn't even rank in some analysts' top five. It's ridiculous.

[pogoowner]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebvLPKsPrUM

This here is a prime example of what is wrong with ESPN. The analysts are asked to rank the top five NBA players, and LeBron James makes neither of their lists.

The rationale for Stephen's list is: There's one game. 48 minutes. I need to win that game. Who do I go with?

There are some major problems with this rationale, the most obvious one being that the NBA season is not one game long. The NBA season is an 82 game marathon plus playoffs. It doesn't matter who gives you the best chance to win one game. That's a completely useless scenario.

Both guys also mention a player's ability to close as being a major factor. This is an even bigger issue with ESPN: It's getting to the point where the criteria for evaluating basketball players is basically whether they are likely to play well with two minutes left in a close game. The importance of the regular season has turned to nothing. You can have a guy like LeBron James be clearly the best player during the season and through the first three rounds of the playoffs and then just because he plays like shit in the Finals he doesn't even rank in some analysts' top five. It's ridiculous.

They do the exact same thing with quarterbacks, and it disgusts me.

[GuineaPig]

The notion that points/goals/TDs/etc. are worth more in the last few minutes than at any other point in the game is another ridiculous one crafted by sports analysts. 

[King Postwhore]

But there is something about a guy that can perform when it's needed.  I'm not saying it;s the end all but it sure helps in figuring out the best.  Sure Lebron and Dan Marino are HOFers and many others but the finishers are a special breed to when they put up the numbers like those two and clutch when it counts.

[GuineaPig]

I don't think clutch play exists.  Or at the very least, I am skeptical of it.

[orcus116]

The whole notion of clutch only exists if you really want it to. People will argue that it's a true attribute but look at how many mediocre players get hot at the right time or get a few breaks out of pure luck and are suddenly Mr. Clutch (I'm looking at you David Freese). Sports are so random in their very nature that I don't really believe something like clutch can exist because the average fan/analyst's perception of "pressure situations" is most likely wildly different than that of a player in one of those positions.

[snapple]

Well, I'm of the opinion that if someone can crack under pressure, why can't the opposite be true?

[Riceball]

Statistics in sport are only as useful as statistics in business: you can use them to assess how someone/something is performing, but the future is so inherently random that they can tell you almost nothing meaningful about future performance.

This comes from a guy who makes bank on numbers/statistics.

[hefdaddy42]

If "clutch" didn't exist then there wouldn't be anything to talk about when they talk about "clutch" players.  Those are players who can be counted on to make the plays to win the game.  They win the big games.  People remember champions. 

They talk about about things like "for one game" because it always comes down to one game.  Anybody can have one good game, a lot of players can have one good season, some people can have multiple good seasons, fewer still have multiple great seasons.  But fewer still make the big plays to win the game when it gets down to that one game they have to win.  That's what "clutch" is about.  That's a relatively small pool of people.

[orcus116]

I still think it's more luck than anything. Like I said, we've had two World Series in a row now where a completely below average/average player gets hot at just the right time and is celebrated like they've always been a clutch player (Cody Ross and David Freese). Yes, great players should be able to hit those big spots since they're incredibly gifted but they can't be that 100% of the time and if someone like Lebron starts crapping out in the Finals then I'd chalk it up to that small percentage of time that they've hit a cold streak just like any athlete.

[GuineaPig]

Well, I'm of the opinion that if someone can crack under pressure, why can't the opposite be true?

But I don't think professional athletes crack under pressure (with one asterisk: very tall basketball players.  I'll explain why).  It's the opposite of what the media calls being "clutch"; it's just a cold streak.   I think it's a fundamental attribution error to purport that cold streak's cause to psychological issues.

If "clutch" didn't exist then there wouldn't be anything to talk about when they talk about "clutch" players.  Those are players who can be counted on to make the plays to win the game.  They win the big games.  People remember champions. 

They talk about about things like "for one game" because it always comes down to one game.  Anybody can have one good game, a lot of players can have one good season, some people can have multiple good seasons, fewer still have multiple great seasons.  But fewer still make the big plays to win the game when it gets down to that one game they have to win.  That's what "clutch" is about.  That's a relatively small pool of people.

Players don't win big games.  Teams win games.  The nature of single games like the Super Bowl, or even seven game series, is one of complete chaos.  The sample size is so small that random variation rules.  If a team goes hot or cold, or a player with extreme influence (QB, pitcher, goalie) goes extremely hot or cold, that throws a big wrench into things.

I think that with a big enough sample size, playoff performance will roughly equal regular season performance.  History's "clutch" players usually fall into one of two categories:

1. great players, typically on great teams
2. players who only had a very small sample size of play, but played well

I don't think either are "clutch."




Here's a great example.  Hockey's most renowned "clutch player" is Patrick Roy.  He holds the record for most playoff MVPs in hockey, with 3 (along with 4 Stanley Cups).  He had a long history of great playoff performances.  He was a great regular season goalie as well, and is certainly the 2nd best goaltender of the modern era.  He played on, and was an integral part of, a series of dominant teams, first with the defensive-minded Canadiens and then the offensively gifted Avalanche. 

He also was responsible for the biggest single-game playoff collapse in the last few decades, in a game 7, against his arch-rivals.

I have no problem reconciling the latter statement with the former paragraph.  Anyone can have a bad game.  But that's a fundamental contradiction if one assumes players are "clutch."

[KevShmev]

Certain player are not so much clutch as a lot of other players simply gag under the late game pressure. 

Also, Kobe Bryant is one of the worst shooters in the NBA in the last minute of games in the last few years, but everyone talks like he is so clutch.  And why?  Because everyone remembers the ones he makes and forgets the ones he misses. 

Lastly, it has to be said about LeBron James: the problem with him isn't that he isn't clutch; it's just that he is not the type of player everyone wants him to be.  He is by far the best player in the league, and everyone wants him to be the guy who always takes the shot at the end of the game, just like Jordan was, but he simply is not that kind of player.  The sooner everyone realizes that, the sooner he stops getting crap for not supposedly being clutch.

[KevShmev]

ESPN's suspension of Bill Simmons illustrates once again how much they suck.  Granted, Simmons all but asked for it, but for a network that allows Skip Bayless and Screaming A. Smith to spout their nonsense five days a week, to suspend Simmons for this is pathetic.

[Jaq]

To be fair, they don't do expletive laden podcasts and then dare ESPN to come after them. That's just begging for a suspension, even if everything he said about Goodell we're all thinking.

[Big Hath]

seems very hypocritical of ESPN to do this.  On the other side though, does Simmons have actual proof Goodell lied?





. . . also

@j

good luck.

with your bottom.

bottom

[Dimitrius]

To be fair, they don't do expletive laden podcasts and then dare ESPN to come after them. That's just begging for a suspension, even if everything he said about Goodell we're all thinking.

This is the first time they've done something because of him using expletives. I've heard a few of his other podcasts and he's used profanity with no repercussion and none of the people from Grantland.com (site run by Simmons but owned by ESPN) have been reprimanded for their use of them and they used them quite liberally.

This is all about staying on the NFL's good side. Can't lose that MNF contract!!!


Anyway, it's hilarious that he was suspended for a week more than Ray Rice.

[RaiseTheKnife]

I wonder what Simmons is going to go public with. 

[TheOutlawXanadu]

It's weird. I agree that ESPN sucks, and I wouldn't be surprised if the real reason they suspended him was to avoid pissing off the NFL, but the reason they gave for suspending him - that he called Goodell a liar without proof - isn't something I completely disagree with. I get that Simmons isn't a journalist and part of his appeal is that he thinks like a fan, but someones I do think he goes overboard in just saying whatever comes to his mind.

[dparrott]

I don't overanalyze things, I watch SportsCenter just to get the latest news, but it pissed me off when I think it was Memorial Day when live baseball was going on, and they put that at the end of the hour to focus on OFFSEASON basketball.  Ignoring the current sport to talk about trades for a half hour?  Stupid.

[Tick]

I stopped watching ESPN about 10 years ago. Its unwatchable for me. Besides watching live sports on the network of coarse.

[KevShmev]

I'll admit I still DVR Around the Horn and PTI, and I can usually get through both in about 10 minutes at night, but tonight's PTI showed how awful it is now. They dedicated a minute and a half to Mark Cuban and Kevin Durant's verbal spat, yet the Blues/Blackhawks Game 7 only gets a brief mention in the Happy Trails segment at the end, only to say Happy Trails to the defending champs. How pathetic.

[Anguyen92]

^^ Yeah, but come on, do we really look up to ESPN to be a good standard bearer when talking about the NHL and hockey in general?  I recall watching one of these shows the day after the Kings eliminated the Canucks back in 2012 (to give more context to those that do not know, the Kings were the 8th seed in the west and the Canucks was the President's trophy winner with them having the most pts in the league during the season and was a solid favorite to win the cup), and the ESPN guys just shrugged it off like it was no big deal or something like the Kings were not going to make an impact in the playoffs.  And then the Kings won the cup, I don't know how those ESPN guys reacted the day after.

I can't even say the NBC Sports Network guys like ...... Pierre Mcguire is a golden standard, but at least, they cover the basis well.

[splent]

It's going to suck less with Skip Bayless leaving. Can't stand him.

[TAC]

Nah, pretty sure it's still going to suck.

[splent]

Nah, pretty sure it's still going to suck.

Didn't say it wasn't going To suck. I said it would suck less.

[KevShmev]

I think I already mentioned in this thread the first time around, but my major beef with ESPN is they are too reliant on talking heads and analysts running their mouths.  I mean, they have like 22 channels now, yet the highlights for most games on a normal Sunday of football, the sport they cover the most BY FAR, are a joke.  Highlight packages used to do a great job of making the 2-3 minute clips of them similar to the pace and flow of the game, to where it was like watching the game at warp speed with the highlights punctuated, but now they plow through most games in less than 30 seconds, just so their 598 talking heads can run their mouths.

And they are too reliant of drama and crap that doesn't really mean a lot.  In general, they ignore hockey, unless something bad happens.  ATH and PTI barely mentioned hockey for weeks, but the minute Duncan Keith slashed someone in the face, they couldn't wait to talk about.  On the flip side, the Blues/Hawks Game 7 got a mention in passing at the end of Tuesday's PTI, while in the same episode, the Duncan/Cuban spat got 140 seconds. And hey, I get it, ESPN doesn't have rights to hockey games anymore, so they don't give a shit about it, but their TMZ approach to journalism and sports talk now is sad.

[Bruinsfan25]

https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/espn-conveniently-edits-curt-schilling-out-of-red-sox-documentary-024028785.html

Whatever your opinion is of Curt, this is lame as hell by ESPN. And I'm not buying the "time restraint" excuse. This was without a doubt one of the biggest moments of that playoff run and to exclude it is inexcusable.