Master Index of Archived Threads


Are They Anti-Mets?

bmfc1 Jul 26 2007 06:18 AM

There are several national reporters/"talking heads" that I think are biased against the Mets. The purpose of this topic is to gage whether I'm alone in thinking certain people have an anti-Mets bias. Tim Kurkjian (ESPN)--no. Jayson Stark (ESPN)--no. Tom Verducci (SI)--no. Peter Gammons (ESPN)--no. So far, so good... but there are others: Jon Heyman (SI)--yes. Ken Rosenthal (FOX)--yes. Steve Phillips (ESPN)--yes. Buster Olney (ESPN)--EMPHATICALLY, YES! Do you agree or am I too "sensitive" about what others say about our team? Feel free to add your comments on other national reporters.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 26 2007 06:34 AM

What have they said/written that make you feel that they're anti-Mets? I have no opinion since I don't read/listen to any of them with any regularity.

metirish Jul 26 2007 06:40 AM

Verducci - Yes Klapisch - Yes

Johnny Dickshot Jul 26 2007 06:45 AM

Fans of every team feel certain columnists are "against them." I don't think it matters any but given a choice, I'd prefer to have my journos to be critics rather than cheerleaders.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 26 2007 06:54 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: I don't think it matters any but given a choice, I'd prefer to have my journos to be critics rather than cheerleaders. I agree with that, as long as the criticism is legitimate. But sometimes these guys are contrary just to kick up a stir and get attention.

metirish Jul 26 2007 06:58 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: Fans of every team feel certain columnists are "against them." I don't think it matters any but given a choice, I'd prefer to have my journos to be critics rather than cheerleaders. Fair point.I was going to say that John Harper in the Daily News is very Anti Met and Pro-yankee but then today he has a glowing piece about Glavine.Still I usually hate his stuff. I kinda like Heyman,when he was at Newsday he even responded to a few emails from Edgy regarding a piece he had written.

bmfc1 Jul 26 2007 07:02 AM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: What have they said/written that make you feel that they're anti-Mets? I have no opinion since I don't read/listen to any of them with any regularity. A lot of this is my perception--I'm not prepared to provide footnotes--and that's why I'm seeking the opinions of others. Do you think that these guys, and others, are pro- or anti- Mets or are they, as has been said, just being provocative? Phillips appears to want the Mets to suck...perhaps it's because the Mets fired his sorry ass and/or so his former deputy, OM, doesn't surpass him by winning a WS. (Phillips recently predicted that the Braves would pass the Mets while the Mets were on the west coast--how'd that turn out?) Olney covered the Yankees and wrote a book about them. I think his daily blog is required reading but my perception is that he minimizes the Mets successes and over-emphasizes anything the Yankees do. E.g., the morning after Beltran's brilliant catch in Houston, he didn't mention it at all.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 26 2007 07:04 AM

bmfc1 wrote: (Phillips recently predicted that the Braves would pass the Mets while the Mets were on the west coast--how'd that turn out?) His prediction was wrong, but it wasn't unreasonable. I'm not anti-Mets, but I sort of expected the Mets to come home from California in second place.

Iubitul Jul 26 2007 07:21 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 26 2007 07:26 AM

Why do we really care what any of these blowhards have to say? They are as full of %&*$ as anyone else.

Frayed Knot Jul 26 2007 07:26 AM

I think labeling sportswriters/casters as anti-Met (or anti-whatever) is a waste of time and often more than a bit childish. It's my experience that MOST fans think MOST of the media is aligned against them largely because they assume that these guys view the sports world with the same black hat/white hat mentality that they do (they make the same mistake about players). But the media sees this stuff as a JOB and I don't for a minute believe that Buster Olney - who grew up in Vermont as an LA Dodger fan - openly (or even secretly) roots for the Yanquis to the point of having it taint his work simply because he was assigned to them by his former employer for a 5-year span last decade.

bmfc1 Jul 26 2007 07:34 AM

FK--valid points, thanks (despite the "childish" comment... I prefer to think I'm just protective of my team). Maybe these guys are simply filling air time and web pages. Maybe they say things about every team and we only pick up on the Mets comments. That's one of the reasons I started this thread.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 26 2007 07:45 AM

I would doubt that anyone in the national media would be "anti-Mets" or anti- any other team. Maybe somebody in the local media might be, because it would get them attention. Anti-Met might rile people up and get publicity on WFAN or in the News or the Post, but nobody in Peoria cares if somebody criticizes the Mets. Filip Bondy has been openly anti-Met in his opinion columns in the News, but he's also written some positive things about them when he puts on his "objectivity hat" and writes more of a straight piece. It all depends on what mode he's in. But, really, there's no need to be "protective" of your team. It's pointless to read these columns looking for something to be offended about. If somebody predicts that the Mets will finish in second place, or third place, or last, who cares?

metirish Jul 26 2007 07:52 AM

I expect that when SJR joins the trade he'll be pro-Yankee...sorry pro-Mets.

Frayed Knot Jul 26 2007 08:01 AM

]Maybe they say things about every team and we only pick up on the Mets comments. I think that's the main point. Most fans pay an inordinate amount of time paying attention to ONE team and only casual attention to the other 29 and are more likely to pick up on every slight, every mistake, every every piece of mis-information - whether real or imagined - about their own team. It's the same reason, btw, that fans tend to think of their team as being: - uniquely susceptible to losing to rookie pitchers, - consistently unable to get runners in with less than two outs, - saddled with a string of unreliable, heart-attack inducing closers, - yadda, yadda, yadda because that's the team you see it happen to most often. Where it gets childish (IMO) is when fans who start with this myopic view assume that anyone not declared as being with their team must automatically be against and, once there, it's easy to see a bias in all their work since you're starting with the conclusion and then simply selectively picking out that evidence which supports the already-reached conclusion. Large segments of Met fans, for instance, see Timmy McCarver as a Yanqui shill, while I've yet to meet a MFY fan who doesn't think McCarver is more anti-Yankee than anyone since Stonewall Jackson.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 26 2007 08:08 AM

I remember how, during the 1986 World Series, Red Sox fans were angry because Vin Scully and Joe Garagiola were so biased for the Mets and against the Sox, but Mets fans were saying just the opposite, that the broadcasters had a clear bias for Boston. I agree that "childish" is a good word to describe this.

iramets Jul 26 2007 08:32 AM

I think these guys are, if anything PRO-Mets when they bring up possible concerns and issues that the Mets themselves need to have highlighted, so the Mets can repair any damage sooner rather than later. Whether it's Willie basing his managerial decisions on voodoo, or Milledge doing a raindance in the loge section, or Mark Corey doing blow on national TV, when these guys publicize it, they force the Mets to deal with it, stop it, amend it or otherwise deal with it asap. That's a good thing. FK is dead wrong here in one regard: it's not childish, it's babyish to whine and pout and go wah-wah-wah when someone says something critical about the Mets that hurts your tender feelings. Take criticism like a man--shrug it off or refute it if there's something inaccurate in it, or fix what the critic is pointing out if it's accurate and if you possibly can. And thank the man for helping you out.

Willets Point Jul 26 2007 09:06 AM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: I remember how, during the 1986 World Series, Red Sox fans were angry because Vin Scully and Joe Garagiola were so biased for the Mets and against the Sox, but Mets fans were saying just the opposite, that the broadcasters had a clear bias for Boston. I agree that "childish" is a good word to describe this. It may be the glow of childhood memories, but I remember Vin and Joe's coverage of the World Series fondly especially compared with the commentary we get on present day FOX & ESPN postseason games.

Edgy DC Jul 26 2007 09:07 AM

metirish wrote: ="Johnny Dickshot"]Fans of every team feel certain columnists are "against them." I don't think it matters any but given a choice, I'd prefer to have my journos to be critics rather than cheerleaders. Fair point.I was going to say that John Harper in the Daily News is very Anti Met and Pro-yankee but then today he has a glowing piece about Glavine.Still I usually hate his stuff. I kinda like Heyman,when he was at Newsday he even responded to a few emails from Edgy regarding a piece he had written. Still, when cornered by data --- I stole liberally from Centerfield --- on the Benitez angle, he gave me, "Well, he has other problems." Thanks.

cleonjones11 Jul 26 2007 11:22 AM

Robert Duvall in "The Natural" was anti-NY

G-Fafif Jul 26 2007 11:42 AM

Those of us who watch our team with a jeweler's eye are often surprised to find those who don't -- but who are ballyhooed as experts -- evaluating our team and missing or skewing what seem like obvious points. I think this is mostly a symptom of the Olneys and Phillipses and and so on needing to be "on" all the time, never being able to say "I haven't seen all that much of the Mets, except for this piece of video the producer told me to comment on, but I better protect my image as all-knowing and sound authoritative." It's an insidious practice. Though not as insidious as the top of the sixth currently in progress.

metsguyinmichigan Jul 26 2007 01:11 PM

I think their greater crime is not necessarily that they are anti-Met, but that they view the world through a Yankee-centric lens. Verducci, who I like to make fun of, is very guilty of this. For example, he can't make a point about another team or player without some side comment about the Yanks. There was some rookie story last year, and he made a comment about another secondbaseman who should be battling Robinson Cano for All-Star starts and batting titles for years to come, despite the fact that Cano has neither a batting title nor an All-Star start. Last year he went on a rant about how the post-season was so boring. Well, for him it was, as soon as his Yankees were eliminated. He can't mention Reyes without some comment about Jeter -- who he recently tried to compare to Joe DiMaggio. Klapisch, on the other hand, has made a career out of bashing the Mets and his body of work -- especially the books -- speak for themselves.

Frayed Knot Jul 26 2007 01:26 PM

="G-Fafif"]I think this is mostly a symptom of the [pundits] .. needing to be "on" all the time, never being able to say "I haven't seen [enough to know] but I better protect my image as all-knowing and sound authoritative." It's an insidious practice. If media pundits - whether in sports or politics - would have the guts to say "I don't know" even a little more often the world would indeed be a better place. Of course it would also eliminate most of their jobs so it's not going to happen. Just think about football alone. Since virtually all of FB talk is aimed at gamblers and therefore is about what they think is going to happen in that week's games, the logical (and only correct) answer of; "Well let's wait and see", would make about 95% of pre-game studio shows irrelevent and unneccesary.

Nymr83 Jul 26 2007 01:28 PM

metsguyinmichigan wrote: He can't mention Reyes without some comment about Jeter -- who he recently tried to compare to Joe DiMaggio. Jeter .318/.389/.463/ 123+ DiMaggio .325/.398/.579/ 155+ and he even has twice the number of world series rings that captain intangibles has. sorry, Verducci. ="Frayed Knot"]Of course it would also eliminate most of their jobs so it's not going to happen. Just think about football alone. Since virtually all of FB talk is aimed at gamblers and therefore is about what they think is going to happen in that week's games, the logical (and only correct) answer of; "Well let's wait and see", would make about 95% of pre-game studio shows irrelevent and unneccesary. These days they are also catering to the Fantasy Football players by telling us not just what they expect to happen but which individual players they expect to have good games, they also scroll fantasy stats on the bottom of the screen i believe.

cleonjones11 Jul 26 2007 03:18 PM

Dimaggio couldnt wear Willie Mays' jock..not even close..

Edgy DC Jul 26 2007 05:09 PM

I'm somewhat afraid to ask how you know that.

RealityChuck Jul 27 2007 07:50 AM

Nymr83 wrote: These days they are also catering to the Fantasy Football players by telling us not just what they expect to happen but which individual players they expect to have good games, they also scroll fantasy stats on the bottom of the screen i believe. I think that Fantasy Baseball is the worst thing that ever happened to sports analysis. I have my issues with sabrmetrics, but at least that has produced some useful information. Fantasy sports makes people think that you win real sports games the same way you win in a fantasy league. Since the ultimate fantasy-sport-style team is the MFY, it's clear that that's not so.

Vic Sage Jul 27 2007 10:11 AM

RealityChuck wrote: ...I think that Fantasy Baseball is the worst thing that ever happened to sports analysis. I have my issues with sabrmetrics, but at least that has produced some useful information. Fantasy sports makes people think that you win real sports games the same way you win in a fantasy league... That's bullshit... or, at least, a gross overgeneralization. I no more confuse the "realities" of fantasy baseball with real baseball than i confuse cartoon violence with real violence, and i don't know anybody who does. Despite your lookwarm compliment of sabrmetrics, your statement is nothing more than a restatement of you're ongoing issue with quantitative analysis and its application to baseball statistics in order to assess real life baseball decisions. You're problem isnt with roto (or not exclusively with roto), its with Billy Beane, Theo Epstein, Paul DiPodesta, Bill James and the growing number of baseball executives who find it a valuable tool. You continue to present yourself as some kind of romantic or baseball purist who gives greater weight to the metaphysics of "intangibles" than the mathematic analysis of "tangibles". Whatever, dude. But don't demean roto players as folks who don't really understand baseball just cuz it suits your agenda to do so.

metsmarathon Jul 27 2007 12:42 PM

i reject the notion that the yankees are built like a fantasy team. flat out reject it. the yankees are built like a kid collecting baseball cards, moreso than a by a roto-leaguer. in a roto league, you need balance and production out of all your guys, and you need depth too. if you're collecting baseball cards, balance is meaningless - you just want names. and besides, the yankees biggest issue this year is neither that they are unbalanced or have too many names, or whatever. its that they've made poor investments and poor decisions about players who don't produce well enough, consistently enough. if they were a fantasy baseball team, they'd've kept sheffield, or played cabrera, over abreu. also, and this might come as a suprise, but the players you'd most like to have on your fantasy baseball team, you know, the more productive players, are also the players you'd most like to have on your real baseball team. this gives me a fun idea - to build up a fantasy world wherein the real major league teams play against each other in fantasy baseball! i wonder if the results therein would prove similar to the results in real life...

iramets Jul 29 2007 05:28 AM

If anyone cares, the part of this thread where I appear, exchanging views with FK about Glavine and Derek Lowe, has been relegated to the Red Light Forum. Edgy says it was "absurd," and though I don't know exactly what part he means by that, I do think something is absurd about this.