User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 1.0259 seconds
42 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
If he thinks the Yankees have "all the offense in the world", he doesn't "know his stuff". He is right that they need pitching though.
The one area where it's almost impossible to overrate Jeter is in media savvy. I have no doubt he'd handle it just fine.
I'd imagine the 2005 and 2007 seasons consisted of some serious rough patches, at minimum. Jeter was also the face of the Yankees during the height of the steroid scandal, when Jason Giambi and Gary Sheffield were both in pinstripes, to say nothing of having to deal with Pettitte/Clemens.
This began about 5 months ago when the Bucks and Nets made a trade, where the Bucks ripped off the Nets. The rationale there was that the Nets were clearing room for LeBron in 2010. Yesterday Y! Sports (the biggest sports website) had a story about LeBron to the Knicks. We are still seasonS away from this.
*Somebody has been peddling the concept around here that there is no such thing as a New York bias. What a joke.
You claimed that there was a NYC bias to MLB awards voting and HoF voting. Others pointed out that there was no evidence of such a thing in the history of those votes. So now, these stories about LeBron possibly signing with the Knicks or Nets are evidence of NYC bias in MLB award and HoF voting?
There was also 2003 when he had his shoulder separated and chose a very tough rehab program and played through a ton of pain instead of having surgery and leaving his team at the mercy of Eric Almonte.
It's been pretty silly the amount of space devoted to LeBron to the Knicks but the fact is that every NBA team save for the handful that can legitimately win a title in the next two years should be, right now, devoting all of their resources to having enough cap space and cash on hand to go after LeBron. The fact is that the deals the Knicks made last week had nothing to do with 2008 or 2009 and EVERYTHING to do with a targeted bid for LeBron in 2010.
This shows your milwaukee myopia. The LeBron to NYC talk started when he came into the league.
If there's anybody who can bulk up a pitching rotation, it's CC Sabathia.
AO
Correct. Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade are FAs that winter as well, among others.
That is another oft-heard rumor. The Richard Jefferson deal was made for this reason.
I claimed there was a NYC bias and used MLB awards as evidence. Big difference. Even still, I proved a bias. But the people that argued against me said there was "no NYC bias" in general (also different than just limited to awards and HOF).
To deny the NYC bias is to be a dolt on par with Palin.
this shows your NYC myopia. (not surprising) the LeBron to NYC talk began (to get huge) 5 months ago.
*besides, I live in the NYC media market. impossible to have a Milwaukee myopia.
If there is one constant in life, whenever you are called out on the total ######## you write, you come back with slightly updated wording and act like your original was still true when you wrote it.
Not to mention Amare Stoudemire.
Or who you do off the field in his case.
I, too, have detected a New York bias in the New York media.
Uhh, no. I never said the LeBron to NYC talk never existed. I will acknowledge that the talk existed right here right now, no big deal, but it was rather limited and local (to NY).
My original comment that "it started 5 months ago" was specifically about how it has been all over the national media since after that Nets trade. You simply went berserk over a comment I made, so I clarified my comment so you could better understand it and realize that you were a douche bag over nothing.
Sometimes a little clarification is all that is needed. You pretended like you had me in check mate or something by calling attention to the fact that people have been discussing this since the start of his career. Relax. Less roid-rage Barry. Even comment #4 agrees with my sentiment.
Gentlemen, gentlemen, there will be no fighting in the war room.
Someone I know on Facebook was complaining that the terrorist attacks in Mumbai/Bombay did not get as much coverage as 9/11 in the New York Times.
Actually this is correct. Here there is local news (NYC) and national news (NYC). It is amazingly not as easy as you might think to get news from other parts of the world.
While everyone wanted to focus on winners in awards, I pointed out that it was the candidates and non-candidates where the bias manifested itself. Using the entire ballot and points tallied from these awards and I demonstrated that NYC players tended to do much better, even mediocre NYC players, tended to "overindex" when compared to non-NYC players, certainly better than the mediocre non-NYC players.
But that was only a tool to demonstrate NY bias. In general I don't see the harm in acknowledging there is a bias. People fight it like somehow they are defeated if they accept this fact.
Imagine the Vegas casinos, blackjack. Sometimes you win, other times you lose, blackjack is actually close to 50/50 if you play it perfectly, but over the long run, you will lose and the house wins. Bias (NYC) is the house edge.
I poke my head in here every once in while, so no I didn't see any of your points about the award voting bias. I guess I just reacted because I often see this argument about NY bias pertaining to every part of media coverage and sometimes I see it and sometimes (in the case of award winners) I don't. I must admit that I haven't thought it as it relates to those who are considered candidates and those who are not. My sense is that NY baseball players have benefitted in recent years from being on good baseball teams.
I'm in Cleveland. We've been hearing this #### for years.
Lebron might be in the Hall of Fame before the Nets get to Brooklyn.
I know, but I think he will stay in Phoenix.
Location doesn't matter that much in marketing an individual player.
Players like to live in the South, and Texas and Florida have no income tax (although players are soaked for taxes for each game they play in other states).
You really think so? LeBron will be everywhere if he signs with the Knicks in a few years.
Probably; but this doesn't really happen a lot in sports. There is no way Bron doesn't take the max in 2010. It works in his favor because he is so good that I would imagine whatever team he is on is more likely to draw veterans and guys to play for his team that want a crack at a title.
You really think so? LeBron will be everywhere if he signs with the Knicks in a few years.
Lebron had marketing deals that swamped anything he could earn in NBA salary before he saw a professional tipoff.
It's interesting to think about though. The biggest NBA stars of the last thirty years have been Jordan, Bird, Johnson, O'Neal, Bryant, Thomas, and they all have been in big cities, but they also won. Who would have pushed them aside but for the city they played in? Olajuwon, Malone, Duncan all seem like personalities that are/were happy with their low profiles and would not seek the international superstardom that people believe requires LeBron to go to NYC to achieve.
My sincere question is which NBA player could have been an outsized media presence only if they had played in a top ten media market?
Reggie Miller had the personality, though he didn't have the all-around talent. Of course, the fact the Pacers may have left for some other city if the Reggie/Larry Brown combo didn't breathe life into the franchise is probably a better legacy than a few extra TV commercials.
A significant part of the NBA and its attendant marketing (shoes, clothes, drinks) are based on international sales. I think that among European teenagers there is less distinction between a Cleveland Cavalier and a New York Knick than there would be in the United States.
LeBron staying in Cleveland would not have the effect that people seem to think it would have.
It started before that, people were talking about the lottery fix being in à la 1985 for a couple years before LeBron came into the league. Instead the Knicks ended up with Michael Sweetney. Not exactly what Knicks fans were hoping for and I have a feeling the same thing will happen in 2010.
As for the endorsement issue, according to SI LeBron already makes twice as much in endorsements as any other NBA player (Yao & Kobe) and 3 times as much as any MLB player (Jeter). That number will continue to rise no matter where he is, especially if he starts winning titles.
The other guys in 2010 are less likely than LeBron to sign with NY, at least imo. Dwyane Wade is going nowhere, Miami will also have the cap room to add a max player and they have Beasley, Chalmers, and Wade's personal coach (Spoelstra) as their new head coach. He already carried them to a title and he's got a chance to be the most revered athlete ever in Miami. No way he would settle for being NY's Plan B. Chris Bosh is a legend in Canada in a way he would never be in the US. He may want to come back to the U.S., I suppose, but why NY over any of a dozen other teams that will have cap space? The Knicks will likely be a horrible team over the next two years because they won't be able to sign anybody and they've already dealt away their 2010 draft pick. I guess if they get Ricky Rubio this year they could be more attractive to free agents because at least they would have one other building block, but other than that, all they'll have is Wilson Chandler, Eddy Curry, and maybe Nate Robinson. Even with LeBron, that is not a championship core.
Back in 2000, the Bulls had a horrible team and room for 2 max deals. Tim Duncan, Tracy McGrady and Grant Hill were all free agents that year. The Bulls ended up with Ron Mercer and Brad Miller. The same thing is going to happen to the Knicks unless they can somehow add some young talent that will be in place for the new guys.
To be honest, I'm surprised that he's only doubling the next highest NBA players. After all, this is the guy who signed a $90M deal with Nike before even playing a game.
Thank you for mentioning this. From every account that I've seen, Bosh is incredibly happy playing in Toronto, and he's playing for a team with a smart GM, a capable coach, and an offense which is centered around him. I'd be extremely surprised if he didn't re-up for a max contract.
Imagine the Vegas casinos, blackjack. Sometimes you win, other times you lose, blackjack is actually close to 50/50 if you play it perfectly, but over the long run, you will lose and the house wins. Bias (NYC) is the house edge.
IOW what? Does the gossip about LeBron to the Knicks get 2% more coverage than it would in a perfectly unbiased media world? Man, you've got one hellified bias detector there, if it can measure bias that subtle.
I hope LeBron just stays in Cleveland and duels it out with the Celtics for the next ten years or so. Let the Knicks go after Kobe if they want a big name. At least that way they'll be picking on a market their own size.
A conspiracy literally the size of New York City!
I don't think it takes conspiracy theory paranoia to believe that there's an NYC sports media bias. All it requires is a recognition of the immense importance of NYC both generally (an economic/population center) and specifically (a media creation/distribution center). It's only natural that this media will retain certain features of its locality.
The Jazz will likely have that pick anyway.
bebop, the problem isn't any refusal on my part to recognize the obvious facts that you lay out, it's the value-saturated tone of the entire conversation which gets introduced whenever that "b"-word gets put into play. Jesus, if that "bias" had any real effect beyond what you've just mentioned, Roger Maris would be in the Hall of Fame, Patrick Ewing would be enshrined above Bill Russell and Hakeem Olajuwon in the public consciousness, etc., etc.
We always come back to the same shell game: A charge of "bias" is thrown out; counter-examples are given by the carload; the counter-examples are dismissed with a brush of the hand and the original charge repeated; a question is raised as to the substantive net effect of any such bias; and after endless sputtering, the people making the original charge accuse you of "changing the subject." It's the same sort of BS we saw in the "media bias" threads on the election, and just about as worthy of serious consideration.
Their entire point about "bias" isn't really a point at all, in the sense that it's any sort of a meaningful concept in the manner that they're trying to use it. It's little more than the sort of bullshlt about "press bias" you hear from the likes of Coulter and Limbaugh, only in this case transported to the sports shows and the sports sections.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main