Barry Baseball?
Baseball Widow is currently busy with her law finals, so she's let Baseball Hubby step in and write a few posts. I thought that today's post was an interesting one, since it concerns Barry Bonds and his home-run streak. Baseball Hubby's argument is an extension of what I said the other day about a team being made up of one player - my argument was that "one stellar slugger doth not a baseball team make", whereas his argument is more "one stellar slugger doth not the sport of baseball define":
Now, don’t misunderstand me, I’m as pleased as the next guy with stats, records, and streaks, but are they really more important than the game itself? Here’s an example. It seems like ESPN is interrupting its programming for every single Bonds at bat. The reason is simple, to see if Barry makes history. But think for a second if the game situation is taken into consideration (or even given to the viewer). When the at bat is done, so is the coverage, as if there wasn’t even a game with 9 innings and 2 teams vying for the win. Think also of the headlines about Giants ballgames, a typical one might read, “Bonds does it again with a record setter, and, by the way, the Giants lose.”
[...]
Last night, however, Bonds didn’t homer. This stopped his streak of games with a homer just short of the record held by a few other players. People will be complaining today that Bonds didn’t get the chance he deserved because Jake Peavy (the Padres pitcher) walked him twice. The game announcers certainly spent a lot of hot air on the subject. Lost (to me) in this talk was the fact that Peavy was tossing a shutout for a team trying to compete with the giants for the pennant. So what will the headline be for this game? Could be “Pads over .500 on the strength of Peavy’s gem,” but I wouldn’t bet my Balco stock against one like this, “Bonds misses records, and by the way Giants lose.”
ESPN's headline actually read "Schmidt struggles; Peavy shines", but it's a valid point nonetheless.
Now, don’t misunderstand me, I’m as pleased as the next guy with stats, records, and streaks, but are they really more important than the game itself? Here’s an example. It seems like ESPN is interrupting its programming for every single Bonds at bat. The reason is simple, to see if Barry makes history. But think for a second if the game situation is taken into consideration (or even given to the viewer). When the at bat is done, so is the coverage, as if there wasn’t even a game with 9 innings and 2 teams vying for the win. Think also of the headlines about Giants ballgames, a typical one might read, “Bonds does it again with a record setter, and, by the way, the Giants lose.”
[...]
Last night, however, Bonds didn’t homer. This stopped his streak of games with a homer just short of the record held by a few other players. People will be complaining today that Bonds didn’t get the chance he deserved because Jake Peavy (the Padres pitcher) walked him twice. The game announcers certainly spent a lot of hot air on the subject. Lost (to me) in this talk was the fact that Peavy was tossing a shutout for a team trying to compete with the giants for the pennant. So what will the headline be for this game? Could be “Pads over .500 on the strength of Peavy’s gem,” but I wouldn’t bet my Balco stock against one like this, “Bonds misses records, and by the way Giants lose.”
ESPN's headline actually read "Schmidt struggles; Peavy shines", but it's a valid point nonetheless.
posted by Iain at
18:14
<< Home