Noggin Member Username: Noggin
Post Number: 74 Registered: 09-2004
| Posted on Sunday, October 15, 2006 - 9:50 pm: | |
Although a St. Louis trip to the World Series would make endless comparisons with the '68 version I believe that the national media would ignor the entire series. If the New York Mets make it would be an important event. The rest of country would get a chance to see another positive story about the city of Detroit. What do you think? |
Salvadordelmundo Member Username: Salvadordelmundo
Post Number: 35 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Sunday, October 15, 2006 - 9:57 pm: | |
Baseball TV ratings have been tanking for a while, with spikes whenever either the Red Sox or Yankees are involved. I do think that a Detroit - St. Louis series will be overlooked more than a Detroit - Mets series. But the Mets aren't the marquee national team from the NYC market, either. |
Naturalsister Member Username: Naturalsister
Post Number: 833 Registered: 11-2004
| Posted on Sunday, October 15, 2006 - 10:01 pm: | |
The Detroit Tigers are THE story. later - naturalsister |
Ravine Member Username: Ravine
Post Number: 400 Registered: 01-2006
| Posted on Sunday, October 15, 2006 - 10:15 pm: | |
I don't think the national media would exactly ignore a Tigers-Cardinals World Series, but generally, I agree with your assertion that a meeting with the Mets would be better for our city. Also, it would provide a chance to slap around yet another team from New York, although most of us could not possibly detest the Mets with anywhere near the level of loathing we hold for the Yanks. On top of that, St. Louis is more of a "hardscrabble, workingman's town" like Detroit, so why tussle with them? (Besides, screw the Cardinals. Lately, they win their division handily, then fizzle. I have more respect for the Mets.) One last thing, however-- Leyland and LaRussa, probably, would love to go after each other in the World Series. |
Yupislyr Member Username: Yupislyr
Post Number: 164 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Sunday, October 15, 2006 - 10:37 pm: | |
That stuff about huge ratings drops if a team like the Yankees isn't involved is a myth, at least on a national scale anyway. "Did you know that during the 2000 Subway Series, 61% of the televisions in New York watched Game 5? Did you know that the next thirty (30) largest television markets, during that same exact viewing period, registered double digit percentage losses compared to the market in New York City?" http://baseball-almanac.com/ws /wstv.shtml Average rating since 1995 for World Series games with the Yankees: 14.8 Average rating since 1995 for World Series games without the Yankees: 15.2 Average share since 1995 for World Series games with the Yankees: 24.5 Average share since 1995 for World Series games without the Yankees: 25.4 Data came from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W orld_Series_television_ratings The ratings of baseball as a whole are falling. What teams are playing doesn't have a whole lot to do with it. |
Tndetroiter Member Username: Tndetroiter
Post Number: 379 Registered: 12-2005
| Posted on Sunday, October 15, 2006 - 10:45 pm: | |
I think a lot of it has to do w/ how horrible the Fox broadcasts are. |
Smogboy Member Username: Smogboy
Post Number: 3877 Registered: 11-2004
| Posted on Sunday, October 15, 2006 - 11:09 pm: | |
I think the broadcasters for the ALCS were horrid. They were so uninformed and didn't have a clue. I'm going to assume they'd bring their golden child, Joe Buck to call the Finals. |
Chitaku Member Username: Chitaku
Post Number: 815 Registered: 03-2006
| Posted on Sunday, October 15, 2006 - 11:20 pm: | |
I can't stand all of the stupid sound effects and graphics and pointless info about the players. Like i care what their favorite food is. The camera angles are also pathetic, especially the home plate cam, reminds me of fox's lazer hockey puck. |
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 528 Registered: 02-2006
| Posted on Sunday, October 15, 2006 - 11:27 pm: | |
Frankly, I don't give a damn about the national media or who is watching. Bring on the easiest matchup! |
Jerome81 Member Username: Jerome81
Post Number: 1144 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Monday, October 16, 2006 - 12:02 am: | |
Agreed about Fox. I actually thought I was the only one. But the infinite replays, and the stupid graphics and sounds really get to me. ESPN broadcasts are wonderful, in my opinion. |
Smogboy Member Username: Smogboy
Post Number: 3880 Registered: 11-2004
| Posted on Monday, October 16, 2006 - 2:54 am: | |
ESPN is so much more professional than Fox. At least with ESPN, the graphics are at least relevant to the game. Fox seemed more interested in showing us the favorite actors of the athletes. I just want a sense of professionalism when it comes to covering the game. I could care less how the mass media wants to spin the Tigers versus whomever. Where's George Kell, Al Kaline & Larry Osterman when we really need them?? |
Aiw
Member Username: Aiw
Post Number: 5898 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Monday, October 16, 2006 - 8:42 am: | |
But I have a buring desire to know which professional wrester is Kenny Rogers' favorite... lmfao! They blow, and they couldn't have found a duller person than Lou Pinella to put in the brodcast booth. I hope he gets a managing job this off season so I never, ever, ever have to deal with that again. |
Ravine Member Username: Ravine
Post Number: 403 Registered: 01-2006
| Posted on Monday, October 16, 2006 - 9:00 am: | |
And then there is my favorite Dumb-ass move: The camera shot of the booth, so not only are you stuck with listening to these wretchedly annoying bastards, you have to see them, too. Also, the insistence on trying to fit little taped bits IN BETWEEN BATTERS so that we miss the first pitch to the batter. |
Rustic Member Username: Rustic
Post Number: 2839 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Monday, October 16, 2006 - 9:49 am: | |
If you are like me, when it gets too offensive, SAP the spanish broadcast instead ... you still get the quick edits, dermatologically explicit closups and bad camera angles but at least you won't get the idiot announcers (my "habling espanol" :P is a bit too clumsy to pick up more than the play by play). btw the FOX affiliate channel I was watching MISSED the first Ordonez HR in game 4, they got back from the commercial too late with their bumper ad. As to NY/StL, imo it doesn't matter. NY injured is almost as good as StL which says a lot about this years NL. NY was the class of the NL this reg season, StL has been the class of the NL for the last few years so both have a claim to rep the NL. StL has much more postseason experience and are a slightly better team right now. Either one it doesn't matter DET is a better team and they are playing better. (Note this doesn't mean a cakewalk in the WS, remember an improbable BOS embarassed a powerhouse StL team a couple of years back and there are many mant other examples too.) As a Tiger fan, I don't think EITHER team offers a significant weakness c/w the other re playing DET. |
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell
Post Number: 3111 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Monday, October 16, 2006 - 10:17 am: | |
The Mets for sure, because we will get far more national exposure. NY controls the TV world and media world and anything the feeds their bonfire of vanities will get hyped. There will be a lot of, 'Hey what's going on in Detroit' and will add more to our growing buzz than a St. Louis series which could easily get cast as two poor rust belt cities looking for respect. Besides, wouldn't it be sweet to take out both NY teams? |
Upinottawa Member Username: Upinottawa
Post Number: 576 Registered: 09-2005
| Posted on Monday, October 16, 2006 - 10:50 am: | |
Pitching wins in the playoffs, and neither STL nor NYM can match Detroit's pitching. For national exposure, the Mets would be the better match up. |
Rustic Member Username: Rustic
Post Number: 2841 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Monday, October 16, 2006 - 11:39 am: | |
IF you wanna factor in cultural impact as Lowell suggests, I'd actually take the Cards over the Mets. Those Cards fans are wonderful. It is a treat to watch fans who don't have to be continuously entertained by shiny flashing objects throughout a baseball game. Fans who project a commonsense pleasure for the game. For example, there was a nice period in yesterdays game (before NY blew it away where) there was a nice extended crowd lull, it was kinda relaxing and plesant for a change esp compared to the high intensty NFL/WWF atmosphere of Shea stadium. It kinda reminded me of the oldtime Tiger crowds, good fundamental baseball fans. StL crowds may be the last bastion of this deep public apreciation of the sport, I'd like to see as much of it as possible while it lasts. But that is just quibbling, from a baseball pov, I see no sig advantage of DET facing one team over the other (with a _SLIGHT_ edge given to StL). |
Tetsua Member Username: Tetsua
Post Number: 814 Registered: 01-2004
| Posted on Monday, October 16, 2006 - 12:19 pm: | |
If the Mets make the Series, I get to clown my fiance ....all ... over ... again when the Tigers beat that ass. I'm pulling for the Mets |
Jiminnm Member Username: Jiminnm
Post Number: 1105 Registered: 02-2005
| Posted on Monday, October 16, 2006 - 12:39 pm: | |
You can provide your feedback to Fox Sports on their web site - http://msn.foxsports.com/feedb ack. I just did, because I thought the handling of the 2 Tigers' Series was pretty bad. |
Yvette248 Member Username: Yvette248
Post Number: 2 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Monday, October 16, 2006 - 4:31 pm: | |
Who cares what the national media thinks. These games are for the FANS, not for Madison Avenue advertisers or Manhattan journalists. |
Fortress_warren Member Username: Fortress_warren
Post Number: 51 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 7:19 pm: | |
What are you? A retard? I was 16 when the tigers won in '68. Of course the MSM will push the NYC angle. Do you think if a Tigers pitcher flew a plane into a building there would be any coverage? Maybe, something about the carbon fiber burning being a global warming threat. Get a grip. |