greasywheels121 Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Nice little article stating such. http://clevelandtribeblog.blogspot.com/200...ot-tonight.html I used to watch this show on a nightly basis, but now I don't feel the need as I gain nothing by doing so and the show's so far from what it used to be--that it's just not worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 I watch it for web gems, pure and simple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rangercal Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 I watched a lot more in 2005. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AssHatSoxFan Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 its usually the best way for me to get sox highlights and thats about it; also That's Nasty segment is pretty good with some of the best pitches of the day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 (edited) it is really painful to watch now. Phillips is a complete train wreck on that show. They did a segment last night where Kruk and Orel drafted 5 pitchers each from the starters of last night and tracked their progress. It was a lame concept, which was executed poorly, poorly edited and an all around nightmare. You get about 15 minutes of Yankees/Red Sox coverage and short highlights of the other games with gimmicky segments in between. Also, the addition of Dusty Baker sucks. He is as bad at commentating as he is at managing I do agree that Web Gems are the only thing worthwhile on it. Also, I think Ravich is good, but is getting crap to work with Edited May 23, 2007 by SoxFan562004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Heres a question for the people who live in the chicago area: If you want to watch sox or overall baseball highlights for the night, do you turn on Comcast Sportsnite or ESPN BBTN? Oh, and did Danks' ridiculous backhand grab make it on Web Gems last night? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 QUOTE(RockRaines @ May 23, 2007 -> 12:54 PM) Heres a question for the people who live in the chicago area: If you want to watch sox or overall baseball highlights for the night, do you turn on Comcast Sportsnite or ESPN BBTN? Oh, and did Danks' ridiculous backhand grab make it on Web Gems last night? Yes, #2 I believe, the ending of the Angels/Tigers came had a great catch by O. Cabrera that was #1 ESPN News does a good job IMO, it covers a lot and is straightforward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 For Sox stuff, I will tune to cmst first, if there isn't another game on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjm676 Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 When Red Sox & Yankees are playing each other, there's really no point in watching it. You'd be lucky to see highlights of 5 other games after the in-depth, inside out, locker room interviews, ptich by pitch, inning by inning segments, analysis of the game. It's so intriguing. When Dice-K pitches, forget about it. BBTN is so biased it makes me sick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 In 2005, when there were days where I couldn't see the games, it proved darn useful, especially in the condensed version, because you get guaranteed highlights of your game within about 20 minutes. I don't watch it very much these days I'm afraid, but I don't watch much tv these days anyway. Don't have time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord chas Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 well if you think its bad now just wait until clemens is back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggliopipe Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Even though he didn't seem to think much of the Sox, Harold Reynolds was really good on BBTN along with Kruk and Ravich. Those three had great chemistry. The show took a dump after he left, probably only partially due to him leaving and the rest attributable to the gimmicky crap, as somebody else already pointed out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Ravech is great, but he looks annoyed most of the time. I don't know if Gammons is full strength yet after his stroke, but, Ravech, Gammons and Kruk would be a great team. Also, I am growing fonder of Orestes Destrade. I think he's going to be excellent given time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 ESPN as a whole has gone downhill. The programming in general blows. I am not sure if there was a shift in focus or what but it has become more tabloid across the board in recent years. It began when they had the original programming which was good (Earnhart, Knight, Alabama football) but the football series was a wreck. How about the Bonds reality series. The Dice-K and Clemens coverage are well over the top. When Clemens was returning to Houston this not nearly as publicized. I see the Boston and New York match-up coverage to a degree as they are worth watching but the coverage outside of the game can get outrageous. The thing that irritates me is the coverage that they force for their programming. The NHL had the coverage on ESPN like the NBA does now. The NBA is covered on ESPN and ABC so the inundate the programming with NBA coverage and the NHL gets minimal coverage at best. Also if there is a program that they force on one network they put crap on the other (i.e. Figure Skating or Poker). The personalities that they are giving more air time to on their shows are also geared toward the tabloid point of view. Mariotti, Michael Irvin, Steve Phillips, etc. I actually like the NBA analysis, Stephem Smith included. With ideas that are put out there to garner controversy rather than fact. Case in point Phillips stating Cliff was the best leftie in baseball at the start of last year. Kruk shakes his head and says Johan Santana, next subject. Phillips is a complete moron with a point of view that should not be allowed to be expressed. Charles Barley is incredibly entertaining and that is what ESPN is looking for, yet Barkley makes good sense. I watch Comcast but they seem to be geared toward the cubs. I am not sure if that is the negative media thoughts I posess toward cub coverage or reality. Putiing it best. After the cubs had struggled earlier this season and then rolled off 2 in a row, Linda Cohan states, "cubs back to their usual winning ways." Say what. ESPN creates thoughts about reality that they feel will get people to watch as oppossed to the reality of the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ May 23, 2007 -> 01:23 PM) ESPN as a whole has gone downhill. The programming in general blows. I am not sure if there was a shift in focus or what but it has become more tabloid across the board in recent years. It began when they had the original programming which was good (Earnhart, Knight, Alabama football) but the football series was a wreck. How about the Bonds reality series. The Dice-K and Clemens coverage are well over the top. When Clemens was returning to Houston this not nearly as publicized. I see the Boston and New York match-up coverage to a degree as they are worth watching but the coverage outside of the game can get outrageous. The thing that irritates me is the coverage that they force for their programming. The NHL had the coverage on ESPN like the NBA does now. The NBA is covered on ESPN and ABC so the inundate the programming with NBA coverage and the NHL gets minimal coverage at best. Also if there is a program that they force on one network they put crap on the other (i.e. Figure Skating or Poker). The personalities that they are giving more air time to on their shows are also geared toward the tabloid point of view. Mariotti, Michael Irvin, Steve Phillips, etc. I actually like the NBA analysis, Stephem Smith included. With ideas that are put out there to garner controversy rather than fact. Case in point Phillips stating Cliff was the best leftie in baseball at the start of last year. Kruk shakes his head and says Johan Santana, next subject. Phillips is a complete moron with a point of view that should not be allowed to be expressed. Charles Barley is incredibly entertaining and that is what ESPN is looking for, yet Barkley makes good sense. I watch Comcast but they seem to be geared toward the cubs. I am not sure if that is the negative media thoughts I posess toward cub coverage or reality. Putiing it best. After the cubs had struggled earlier this season and then rolled off 2 in a row, Linda Cohan states, "cubs back to their usual winning ways." Say what. ESPN creates thoughts about reality that they feel will get people to watch as oppossed to the reality of the situation. ESPN is turning into the sports equivalent of MTV. They are getting away from what made them successful...sports, smart commentary, sports, personalities that work well together, sports, fun. When I watch the Sportscenters when they talk about the previous 25 years, folks like Bob Ley, Charlie Steiner, Dan Patrick, Kenny Mayne, Berman, Keith Olbermann, Tom Mees (RIP), etc. had fun. They would joke and were natural at their jobs. That's why I love listening to Kenny Mayne. He's ridiculous in a fun way and he knows it and he doesn't give a damn. They need to be more like they were before ABC bought them (or vice versa, I don't remember who bought who). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ May 23, 2007 -> 01:23 PM) I watch Comcast but they seem to be geared toward the cubs. I am not sure if that is the negative media thoughts I posess toward cub coverage or reality. I actually disagree with this. I feel like Comcast has made an active effort to favor the White Sox as far as coverage goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ May 23, 2007 -> 01:19 PM) Ravech is great, but he looks annoyed most of the time. I don't know if Gammons is full strength yet after his stroke, but, Ravech, Gammons and Kruk would be a great team. Also, I am growing fonder of Orestes Destrade. I think he's going to be excellent given time. Kruk??? Are you kidding? He provides zero insight or analysis. I think he took the gig for the free food in the ESPN cafeteria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 I use to watch it everyday when Harold Reynolds was still there, now that he is gone I watch it just every so often and it isnt nearly the same quality of show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 I watch it for the highlights of all the games. I don't have a problem with any of the analysts really. Phillips get a little long winded at times though. But yeah, when NY and Boston play, turn it on 15 minutes in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 BBTN was in it's prime when it was Host/Reynolds/Gammons. It was must watch TV everynight with these three. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ May 23, 2007 -> 12:58 PM) ESPN News does a good job IMO, it covers a lot and is straightforward. I don't recall seeing Sox highlights last night though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ May 23, 2007 -> 03:56 PM) I don't recall seeing Sox highlights last night though The 9:00 had them. Danks wasn't picked in their stupid draft thing, but the commentators actually praised him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benchwarmerjim Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 some nights on Baseball Tonight, they dont even show all the teams that played. I have noticed it's usually Tampa Bay and Kansas City and whoever they are playing gets cut out of the show (even if it is an hour long) in favor of some of thier crap 'analysis' like 3 Up/3 Down Grated, Tampa and KC dont deserve a lot of coverage, but they have some good players on the team and it would be nice to see their highlights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ May 23, 2007 -> 01:40 PM) Kruk??? Are you kidding? He provides zero insight or analysis. I think he took the gig for the free food in the ESPN cafeteria. Yeah, because when Gammons is on...he's your insight. Kruk is fun. He has more insight than Steve Phillips and is only getting better. But I have to say, the team of Fowler, Herbstreit and Corso is BY FAR the best on ESPN. OK, maybe Bucci and Melrose, but with hockey gone from ESPN, the Gameday crew is the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteSoxfan1986 Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 I agree with everything in that article. I also remember when Phillips said Lee was the best LHP in baseball . I still watch the show for the highlights (for Sox highlights I just watch CSN). The show was the best when Gammons and Reynolds were on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.