E(pstein’s) S(ox) P(romotion) N(etwork)

What they like more than anything are ratings, and the emergence of the Sox around 2003 made for some great baseball rivalry. It makes their job easier when the stories write themselves like that.
Having said that, I think right about now they root for both teams pretty evenly. Much more than they do for the rest of baseball at least.

THEY LIKE THE SOX CAUSE THEY’RE BETTER SUCK IT YANKEES FANS
Okay, now that I got that out of my system we can all get along again.
You know, the Yankees really need to stop hitting walk-offs. It’s getting ridiculous at this point.

Yes, but each walk-off FORCES the TRUE evil empire that is ESPN to feature prominently – though clearly begrudgingly – the Yankee team heroics. If it weren’t for the walk-offs, the poor under-appreciated Yankee franchise would get no coverage whatsoever on the national stage. (you can tell I’m really enjoying this)
Actually, on the walk-offs, the Yankees have now had 14 of them in 75 home games. That’s one walk-off every 5.35 games at the NYS. Crazy. That’s one way to fill an over-priced stadium…

um, which half?…maybe it just seems like the half who get their mugs on the air all day are the ones who root for the sox…and it’s not a given that the the “other” half roots for the yankees…
I was thinking more along the lines of overall coverage of the Yankees/Sox, not fanboyishness.

I don’t care so much about ESPN on the whole. I care more about Peter Gammons than anything or anyone else. I just wish he’d finally come out and admit his one sided, Red Sox loving point of view is factual and not just a figment. Something to the point of “My blinders are always on” or “I am wearing Red Sox boxers as we speak.” I understand that people hold him in such high regard and that he’s considered one of the great baseball people on that network, but come on enough is enough. Joe Morgan hates the Yankees, Tim McCarver likes them even less, Joe Buck would rather his children worship Satan…the best part of all of them is that they (somewhat) admit to it! Much like my ill fated attempts to wear all black and look thin, Peter you too have failed. It goes like this “Gammo”…My name is John and I am fat…Your turn.
Thanks for this post IH, perfect day for it.

“the emergence of the Sox around 2003”
Ath is that a sad to say as it is to see? :)

Joe Morgan seems to LOVE Jeter, though….based on the comments I’ve heard from him, UZR be damned. Mind you, I avoid listening to him whenever possible.
I think that ESPN just has a bias in favor of conventional “wisdom”, however unwise (or uninformed) it may be.
Before 2004, the Sox could never win anything when it counted – that was the tone which permeated all of the coverage I ever saw.
Now, even when the NYYs have the best record in baseball, backed up by the best offense in baseball accompanied by pretty damn good pitching (overall), the shoe is on the other foot.
Fair? No.
Sox bias? Only temporarily, if at all (but I’m a RS fan)
Predictable? Absolutely.

“…dc, bias in coverage is obviously pretty tough to prove definitively…”
agree, IH…the examples you gave are not proof of anything…not even a individually motivated personal bias by the participants…they are certainly not proof of some media conspiracy or organized espn conspiracy to promote the sox and kick the yanks…on the other hand, my dad used to always root for the underdog…except notre dame [a long time ago ;) ]…he’d say that there are 2 kinds of fans: those who root for notre dame, and those who root for whomever is playing against notre dame…without turning this into another ‘yankees persecution complex’ debate, there is probably some lingering desire to take them down a peg or 2 when the opportunity strikes, while teams like the rays last year, or the sox [despite their recent success since the ownership change], the rockies, etc. are still considered the plucky underdogs…just a theory…as you say, greenie’s comments will raise an eyebrow or 2…the other thing is that the yankees are news…everything they say and do seems to be under a microscope…some of that’s their own fault…when you want to be high profile, you get noticed, good and bad…
“…I was thinking more along the lines of overall coverage of the Yankees/Sox, not fanboyishness. …”
yeah ath, they are 2 different things…last week some folks here said espn’s coverage of jeter was too much…gammo is the best example of fanboyishness i can find on the network…and i don’t mind that as long as it’s honestly portrayed…for all the flak rizutto took over the years, at least he didn’t hide behind some mask of phony objectivity…he wore his pinstriped heart on his sleeve…
“…Joe Morgan hates the Yankees, Tim McCarver likes them even less, Joe Buck would rather his children worship Satan…”
assuming we leave the homers from our respective teams out of the debate, is there a more classic collection of inept, unprofessional buffoons that these guys?
john, you’re fat?…me too…brother

“…It all makes sense now….”
like espn.com’s “sports center highlight of the night”…hmmm
http://espn.go.com/

And as for Gammons: he’s a damn good reporter, one of the best in the sport. But he is ridiculously fanboyish, and probably has Red Sox bedsheets. He’s only one person though.

Funny, last night as I watched the game on ESPN, all I could hear was slavish praise for the Angels and Mike Scoscia. At one point an act of non-retarded baserunning elicited a comment of “that’s Angels baseball!”, totally gushed.
It is not surprising that a business located in New England might actually employ a number of Sox fans. Whether it impacts their ability to report news (does Buster Olney negate Gammons?) is another question.
I find it amusing, this sense of persecution from some Yankee fans. The worm has turned.

One other thing: Peter Gammons has been effusive in his praise of the Yankees the last 15 years. I am pretty sure that he adored Joe Torre, and my sense of his writing, having read him a great deal for 25 years, is that his respect for the Yankees, especially during the Cashman years, has been stratospheric. Why isn’t this ever mentioned? Too inconvenient, doesn’t fit the narrative I guess.
The thing about Gammons is that he is an uber-insider at this point, and that is reflected in his reporting, about the Sox as well as other teams.

don’t get defensive…we said that we’re all just joking…i agree with you about the scoscia lovefest last night…it was gross…
“effusive” and “stratospheric” are a bit hyperbolic, don’t you think?…i have no doubt that gammons has a professional respect for certain yankee individuals, and that there is evidence to prove it…that’s not the point…the question was whether his man-love of the sox influences his thinking and therefore his reporting, and whether or not he’s being disingenuous by not, as john points out, coming out and admitting it…not that my opinion matters much, but i’d have more respect for him if he did…

actually 2 bad calls…i thought the check swing was a real swing…but whatever…it doesn’t matter…bad/missed calls are part of the game…they fuel the “what if” debate, especially if they are at a critical, game-changing point, but they aren’t of any value to the conversation otherwise…they tend to even out over time anyway…i’m sure fans of some teams feel snake-bit or unlucky, but ultimately over 162 games, bad calls and luck, if it exists at all, won’t help you much…

Half of ESPN may root for the Red Sox, but the other half roots for the Yankees.

Good one AG.
I find myself watching less and less ESPN these days. I enjoy the MLB network more to be honest. I watch ESPN for college Gameday and NFL Gameday, but not much else unless it’s a live game. Never thought I would type those words considering in college we’d watch Sportscenter 3-4 times a day.

John, I wasn’t really arguing, per se, or being “defensive”, in fact I think this thread makes for a good discussion!

Meh. ESPN has a locational/storyline bias that favors both the Red Sox and the Yankees. They make for good copy, plus they have the most energetic — and the largest — fanbases that provide the most ratings.
It’s difficult to say ESPN as a whole favors one or the other. As SF noted, Buster Olney loves the Yankees while we all know Gammons loves the Sox (though he was able to be a little more objective about it 10 years ago). Joe Morgan loves himself, and Steve Phillips loves making himself look like an idiot on a nightly basis. Overall, these wash into barely watchable television that is only worth turning on because there’s no real competition outside whatever regional network your team might have. If ESPN has any organizational bias, it’s toward hiring as many “insiders” as possible, without apparently caring whether they know anything about how the game of baseball actually works.
Joe C and Dave O’Brian on the Sox radio broadcast said they thought the check swing was a good call, and they have no problems saying when the Sox have been the beneficiaries of bad umpiring, so I’ll trust their judgement without having seen any replays of the pitch itself. The Ball 4 was, of course, as clear cut a strike as you could possibly get.

“…Joe Morgan loves himself, and Steve Phillips loves making himself look like an idiot on a nightly basis…”
hehe…good job getting us back on the humor track paul…
“…they have the most energetic — and the largest — fanbases that provide the most ratings. …”
and isn’t that what it’s all about, particularly for the guys selling ad time?…the network is in the northeast for a reason…if the san diego padres had the number of fans/viewers that the sox, mets, and yankees have, not to mention the other sports, espn would have been based in sunny calif…
“…Joe C and Dave O’Brian on the Sox radio broadcast said they thought the check swing was a good call…”
yeah, i don’t have a problem with their view on it…my yankee bias says it was a swing, but it was borderline, so not as egregious as the ball 4 screwup…

“…I am unclear on when I argued Gammons’ objectivity….”
i got that sense from your comment at 10:43am:
“…One other thing: Peter Gammons has been effusive in his praise of the Yankees the last 15 years. I am pretty sure that he adored Joe Torre, and my sense of his writing, having read him a great deal for 25 years, is that his respect for the Yankees, especially during the Cashman years, has been stratospheric. Why isn’t this ever mentioned? Too inconvenient, doesn’t fit the narrative I guess….”
semantics…objective, fair, impartial, unbiased, not favoring one side or the other…so that wasn’t your argument?…i missed the point, what was it?…seriously, i’m not trying to be a wise guy…

On this thread, which probably should have a ‘humor’ tag …
I have long derided ESPN for its news judgment and lack of objectivity. I’m not alone. Dan Patrick, since he left, has said many times that ESPN’s worst trait is how it repeatedly gets in its own way.
I recently stated that here on their overempasis of Jeter moving into 53rd place on the MLB career hits list. Big story to New York, no doubt, but just good/interesting/noteworthy on the national scene. Not worthy of the lead story, even on a slow news night. This is one example.
Until 2004 ESPN fell all over itself with the “Curse of the Bambino” theme, a curse that didn’t exist until Shanks wrote that book in 1990. (If I had $1 for every time I saw the Buckner play on ESPN, I’d be a wealthy man.)
See, it wasn’t fun to report how the “curse” was the Red Sox FO and its unwillingness/inability to assemble a good roster and build a good farm system. Same with the Cubs. Enough with the fucking billy goat. We’ve heard it a billion times.
Last night during a BBTN break-in during the Sox-OC game, Karl Ravech made a comment that I clearly interpreted as a Red Sox Fanboy remark. I don’t remember what it was. It just struck me as very unobjective.
Ravech ain’t the only one. It was sickening.
For each great thing ESPN has done for sports journalism, it has done something equally bad. It has hired some great reporters, but it overemphasizes game highlights.
I hate that ESPN has the attitude that if ESPN hasn’t reported it, it hasn’t been reported yet.
I hate that ESPN overdoes EVERYTHING. It’s coverage of Ed Thomas, the Aplington, Iowa, high school coach who was shot to death by a mentally short former player, from the day of his death to the first game of the season, was nothing short of grotesque and idiotic. National story? Yes. Heartbreaking? Yes. But again, they fell all over themselves in bringing it. (I grew up in Iowa and covered high school sports there for 12 years.)
I hate Stuart Scott and his catch-prases. I hate EVERY catch phrease ever uttered on ESPN. I hate Chris Berman. I hate Dick Vitale. I hate Hannah Stormer (her real last name before she changed it to Storm, according to a former co-worker who attended Notre Dame with her.)
I hate Mark Schlereth and almost every other former player-turned-NFL analyst who works for ESPN.
I generally like BBTH.
I hate Barry Melrose and John Buccigross.
I like the ESPN house ads.
Look, I think every single complaint listed above is legit.
I also think the biggest problem here is that most of us seem to forget that on those rare occasions when ESPN gets it right, it’s probably an accident.
We need to stop giving them so much credit.
(Wow. I didn’t mean to pontificate.)

“…The 3-and-2 pitch was borderline. It appeared to cross the plate at the bottom of Green’s knees. It was far from an egregious non-call…..”
i stick by my description…i conceded that the check swing was borderline, but “ball 4” was a strike by all accounts, including “k-zone” or whatever it’s called, and almost everyone who saw it, including some sox fans here…the knees are in the strike zone…that makes it “egregious”, or as webster defines it “conspicuous, especially conspicuously bad”…
hunter got it right…pros shouldn’t be whining about bad umping…that’s what we fans are for…especially if the calls are game-changing…remember jeter’s homer that wasn’t?…folks are still whining about it…they need to get over it already, just as the angels and their fans will get over this…
“…I recently stated that here on their overempasis of Jeter moving into 53rd place on the MLB career hits list. Big story to New York, no doubt, but just good/interesting/noteworthy on the national scene. Not worthy of the lead story, even on a slow news night….”
you’re entitled to hold your ground IBM, even though i explained to you several times why it is a big deal…i wasn’t alone in thinking that, including some sox fans here…so what would have been a more appropriate lead story when it happened, particularly since espn was televising the game where he tied the record?…like i said, the version of sportcenter i saw the next day [after breaking the record] had michael jordan and tiger woods as the lead stories…jeter was 3rd…which points out, i think they jumble the lineup when it suits their purpose…by 11:00 that morning, jeter was no longer news…
i will agree with you that espn has lost touch with it’s original purpose, as i see it anyway: sports coverage…they have morphed into this self-egrandizing, grandstanding caricature that is more about them and their programming content that it is about providing information about sports…it’s entertainment [well, not really], with a little [oh by the way] sports thrown in…

I would argue that the Ball 4/Strike 3 call wouldn’t have mattered if the Angels had properly executed the rest of the inning, but that was probably the luckiest sequence of hits and baserunners I’ve seen in a long time.
At any rate, the Angels scored eight runs and had a lead in the eighth. Whining about the second to last pitch of the game is definitely unprofessional.

Buster Olney loves the Yankees and cancels out Gammons? Really? Does he do fundraisers with Cashman then call Fenway a “joke”?
Olney knows about the Yankees because of his connections, but give me one example where he’s ever been effusive. Hell, just last week Gammons was pimping Epstein as a future commissioner (according to “sources”) in his chat.
And of course, they just launched ESPNBoston. To fill content there they’re assigning the national guys (e.g., Crasnick) to write glowing stories of Boston teams. I mean, if that’s not bias in coverage I don’t know what is.

It’s difficult to say ESPN as a whole favors one or the other.
Hmmmm. An high profile employee there just said half the company roots for one team. What’s the counter evidence? Has even one employee publicly disagreed? Did the statement get challenged by his co-host?