Add Comment

• soxaddict said April 25, 2008

  Are you sure it's not just a "good team bias?" The D-Backs get plenty of air time on ESPN, because they're good. The Giants? Not so much.
  
  The mid-90's and early 2000's were times when I had to watch an entire hour of Sports Center just to see if they even mentioned the Red Sox; it was because we sucked. Not because they had an Atlanta Braves bias.

  Reply

  
• rambler said April 26, 2008

  Yeah, I'm sure. As mentioned in the post, why would I give a turd about the Orioles beating Seattle? It is not about a team being good. It is about the network's perceived interest in a story. Tim Lincecum is better than Joba Chamberlain, has produced better results, yet Joba gets way more press. And the mid-90's ESPN was vastly different than this version, somewhat resembling a news organization. Finally, I'm not sure comparing the D-Backs to the Giants is reasonable in this case, since Arizona is killing the league. I'd agree that good teams get more play than bad ones in most instances but it's not the determining factor. It would be more appropriate to compare the coverage the Giants get right now with the Yankees or Indians or Tigers or Dodgers, based on record, yet we all know the Giants get the short end of that stick. I'd suggest, again, based on record and some of the stats compiled by the starters, the Giants fulfill the "good" necessary in your "good team bias," at least to the extent the above, more covered team do.

  Reply