Dan Murfman said:I'm ready to heckle. The set for their college award show is stone throw from my hotel room.
Then I guess it's time for you to start gathering some stones.
Dan Murfman said:I'm ready to heckle. The set for their college award show is stone throw from my hotel room.
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-soxFollowing the trade of Shoppach to the New York Mets in August 2012, Lavarnway became Saltalamacchia's backup before being handed the starting position by manager Bobby Valentine, who shifted Saltalamacchia over to first base.
Corsi said:
This is basketball, not baseball. Adjusting for different scoring environments and eras count for a lot less, especially when the events happened just 8 years apart. The whole thing falls apart when you realize that Kobe's 81 point effort was the 2nd highest ever...LeBron's 61 is merely tied for 42nd. The topic is only discussed because it's First Take, and because it's Bayless and Smith, a duo for whom intelligent, rational and rational debate is absolutely impossible.terrisus said:To be fair, there are a number of ways that could be approached rather than a straight 81 > 61
Standard deviations from average scoring, scoring relative to strength of the opposing defense, etc.
I have no idea if they touched on any of that stuff, but it certainly is possible.
It's why in Baseball we have stuff like OPS+ and such - to account for eras and scoring environments and such.
terrisus said:To be fair, there are a number of ways that could be approached rather than a straight 81 > 61
Standard deviations from average scoring, scoring relative to strength of the opposing defense, etc.
I have no idea if they touched on any of that stuff, but it certainly is possible.
It's why in Baseball we have stuff like OPS+ and such - to account for eras and scoring environments and such.
ifmanis5 said:I think I can state without objection that ESPN is anti-baseball. They're fine putting the games on in the summer when there is little else to schedule, but the culture of the network cares not about the game at all.
Hendu for Kutch said:I was bored and looking for something to read the other day, so I decided to check out espn.com. I very very rarely go there any more, given that anything worth a damn is now behind the Insider paywall. One of the top stories in the right column was about Lebron's reaction to the Miguel Cabrera deal.
The fall of espn.com is rivaled only by the fall of the Boston Globe sports section. Espn.com was the first site I visited every morning for a long time, now it's a punchline.
cromulence said:Why does ESPN.com seem dead set on making Cricket popular in the US? I've seen Cricket scores come before NHL scores (no big shock I guess) on the ticker at the top and there have been multiple features/stories on the front page about it. I get that Cricket is huge in much of the world, but just stop trying to make Cricket happen in the US. It's not going to happen. And if it does, it won't be because you shoved the Sri Lanka - India score in my face.
At the risk of hijacking a perfectly good thread, any recommendations for what to replace espn.com with? I've got all the same gripes with it that you guys do, but am struggling with where to send my clicks instead...gtg807y said:
I finally deleted it from my bookmarks today. That LeBron headline and the Trout thing were the breaking point. I hadn't seen the score of the Angels game so I assumed it was some walk-off homer they were featuring. Nope, the Angels lost by seven. They're the biggest name in sports media and they're basically just going full Buzzfeed-level shit.
cromulence said:Why does ESPN.com seem dead set on making Cricket popular in the US? I've seen Cricket scores come before NHL scores (no big shock I guess) on the ticker at the top and there have been multiple features/stories on the front page about it. I get that Cricket is huge in much of the world, but just stop trying to make Cricket happen in the US. It's not going to happen. And if it does, it won't be because you shoved the Sri Lanka - India score in my face.
ConigliarosPotential said:
Today's match between Sri Lanka and India was the final of the World Championship competition for the shortest form of cricket (the version that's about as long as a baseball game). Personally, I like the idea that top-level sport which is extremely popular somewhere else in the world gets featured somewhere on the ESPN.com homepage, even if I know it's more down to the deep partnership ESPN has with Asian cricket and its ownership of the Cricinfo website.
cromulence said:
I got that it was some kind of major international event. Still...it's India vs. Sri Lanka and our country collectively doesn't give a shit about cricket. No reason for it to be big news on the front page unless they're trying to make more money somehow.
Bosoxen said:
I was at the gym yesterday and saw that the final play of that match was #3 in their top 10 plays of the weekend countdown. They're definitely pushing cricket pretty hard.
cromulence said:
Weird. I think I'd have a hard time getting into it as a baseball fan. I tuned in for a second and someone got a boundary, which is a really good thing. I mean, he did a nice fist pump afterwards. But to my baseball eye, he just shoved his bat out there and weakly fouled it off. Whoop dee doo.
(Yes, I get that the rules are different and I'm sure what he did is difficult. Just saying.)
Stevie1der said:
I think the dynamic is pretty cool, even if I have little actual interest. Imagine Ortiz up there, constantly fouling balls off, poking them to the gaps when he can, and accumulating runs for the Sox knowing that as soon as someone catches the ball on the fly or he lets the ball past him into the catcher's mitt, he's out and can never come back to the plate again that game.