Aaron Gleeman passed along a little tidbit on Tim McCarver this morning:
Fox Sports is signing two-year contract extensions with Tim McCarver and Darrell Waltrip, its lead TV analysts for baseball and NASCAR coverage, respectively.
The extensions are expected to be announced this week, said Fox spokesman Dan Bell, and will take McCarver through the end of Fox’s seven-year MLB deal in 2013. Waltrip’s extension takes him through the end of Fox’s nine-year NASCAR deal in 2014.
McCarver and Waltrip each had about a year left on their deals, Bell added.McCarver, a former catcher with the St. Louis Cardinals and other clubs, has been with Fox since 1996. Waltrip, a three-time Cup champion, joined Fox in 2001.
This news lead to some indignation among the baseball twitterati, as many wondered how FOX could continue to blatantly disregard the will of the people. No one seems to know anybody who thinks McCarver does a good job, yet the powers that be thought it a good idea to extend his contract and continue to torture intelligent baseball fans with his vapid commentary. The problem with this point of view is that it makes an assumption that I have recently come to see as inaccurate. It assumes that those of us who read and write about baseball on the internet are representative of the masses, that our tight little Twitter circles provide us with a cross section of the baseball fan population. I think the evidence suggests that, on the contrary, the baseball blogosphere and the associated Twitter circles are just a niche group of intense fans, and that the masses are quite content with the Tim McCarvers and John Kruks of the world.
There are a healthy number of analysts on ESPN, MLB Network, and FOX that seem to be universally hated, such that their continued employment is a mystery. While it is possible that executives for the networks have decided to ignore their customers and continually hire people who the fans dislike, I think it exceedingly more likely that the term “universally” is misplaced. We tend to associate with people who have a similar worldview to our own, such that we might argue all time about details but will have a pretty homogenous viewpoint on broader issues. If we endeavored to look outside of our immediate circles, we might find plenty of fans who actually enjoy the work of Tim McCarver. As Craig Calcaterra pointed out to me, FOX is not guessing at McCarver’s popularity when they decide to ink him to a new deal. They perform surveys and do other research to determine McCarver’s impact on viewership, and it seems that the masses have decided that Tim does a fine job. You might point out that you have yet to meet someone who fits that description, but that likely has to do with how tight our circles of association are. I have yet to meet someone who considers Two and a Half Men must-see TV, yet it is the #1 sitcom on television and Charlie Sheen has made enough money off it to revel in coke and goddesses until the end of days.
A perfect example of this disconnect between internet-centric baseball fans and the general fan population can be found in the work of John Sterling, for whom I encounter a lot more animosity online than I do when discussing him with people face-to-face. Harold Reynolds is another analyst for whom my espousal of distaste raises eyebrows, and most of the staffs at Baseball Tonight and MLB Network tend to be a lot more popular with the offline set. Similarly, Mike Francesa infuriates most of the people that I interact with online, yet his show continues to have excellent ratings and crush all competitors.
Raising sabermetric ideas and statistics in offline settings illustrates this point further, as people tend to look at me like I am espousing absurd theories that they have never heard the first thing about. Every time I have one of those conversations, it drives home further the truth that for the most part, those of us who experience much of our fandom through the internet are not representative of the masses. We might just be a minority with an outsized sense of our importance among fans.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
39 Responses to Are We Not Representative Of The Masses?
Leave a Reply
TIQ IQ
Couldn’t have said it better myself, Mo and I agree completely which, I suppose, speaks to your point about the general consensus among like-minded communities. I read this site and contribute to one like it so it’s no surprise that I’d agree with your viewpoint.
Those out there that don’t know the first thing about this site and others like it probably love McCarver and Kruk and guys like them.
Glad to have you back around these parts, MJ. Was going through my inbox this weekend and I saw an old email chain we had. Now you are here. Funny.
I never really left. I’m an RSS subscriber and follow you on Twitter. My only problem was leaving comments because, for some reason, my browser and your old site just didn’t mesh well.
In any case, glad to be here. Love what you’ve done with the place and always enjoy your take on things.
In my circle of friends and acquaintances I’ve found that most people actually get their sports knowledge and information from tv and radio. They don’t do extra research and take the word of Tim McCarver and Mike Francesa as gospel. I don’t mean these people aren’t intelligent and bright people, rather they view sports as an outlet and don’t want (or can’t) spend time on the info gathering. Also, many sports fans like only the emotional aspect of fandom and would rather not apply their heads to sports (again not saying they aren’t intelligent.)
Totally get what you are saying. I know plenty of smart people who are big fans yet don’t want to put in the effort to inform themselves further about sports.
It’s a problem I’ve had in life in general, it’s very hard not to develop an elitist attitude when you are more informed than others. (Although it’s a totally false sense of “eliteness”)
I heard Mike Greenberg say today on Mike and Mike that being a sports fan shouldn’t be work but in actuality being a sport watcher shouldn’t be any work, being an actual fan is a bunch of work and you can spend hours researching, arguing and learning new nuances of the game.
I think that attitude is a perfect example though of the definition of casual fan and hardcore fan, they both may cheer for the same team on game day but for the casual fan the experience ends there outside of the occasion ESPN or talk radio either in free time or to and from work.
Exactly. You hit the nail on the head, T.O.
The casual fan is the reason that people like McCarver and Francesa thrive. Those guys don’t get deep into relevant stats and sabermetrics and speak in terms that the casual fan can understand and relate to.
On the other side of that coin, hardcore fans who know stats and which stats matter can’t stand these guys because they refuse to get with the times and acknowledge what things actually matter when looking at stats.
I, for one, enjoy Francesa solely because of his accent and the occassions where he bullies a really dumb caller around. I find it entertaining. But I find nothing entertaining, informing, or amusing about McCarver. He’s an absolute pock mark on the face of sports broadcasting.
Assuming guys like Francesa n McC don’t do research or study is naive.
Who said that? They don’t make an effort to learn new things. I don’t think anyone said they don’t prepare.
Of course they prepare but I doubt McCarver has ever looked at any stats but Wins, Losses, ERA, Ks, BBs, AVG, OBP, HR and RBI. The man wouldn’t know what FIP was if I walked in the room wearing a shirt explaining FIP.
They clearly are stuck in an era where HRs, RBI and AVG determine if a hitter is good or not and where wins and losses count more than the work on the field, you can tell every day by the kind of stats that constantly get shown on TV that almost no one in that kind of media is using any kind of advanced stat.
If there is 1 good thing about MLB Network they have been trying to slowly turn people on to sabermetrics more and more, they for a long time actually explained a new stat everyday and showed the league leaders trying to get more casuals into better stats.
Yes, we are firmly in the minority, but that shouldn’t come as a surprise. For most people in our “internet circle”, baseball is not only an avocation, but an absurd passion. What else could explain taking the time and energy needed to either contribute to a blog or consume all of the information available on them (not to mention watch 162 games). Our society has two words to describe this behavior: insanity or a job.
When I listen to Mike Francesca, my skin sometimes crawls, but then I remember his job isn’t to know sports, but attract listeners (like me), something at which he is very good. Unfortunately, a large portion of the casual fan base looks at people like Francesca, Kruk, Reynolds, etc. as experts, when in reality they are just collecting a paycheck (which is how our society seems to determine who is an authority).
Your second paragraph is a really important point. We get upset that people who have jobs in sports are not educating themselves about the craft. But their job isn’t to know sports, it is to attract listeners, and they don’t need to educate thmselves to do that
In fact, it might hurt them.
Isn’t this sad though? I understand it’s true but shouldn’t we hold them to a higher standard? It’s not like they ever say “I don’t know what I’m talking about but here’s my advice anyway”, Francesca gives advice and tells people in a very rude way what SHOULD be done and you’re an idiot if you don’t agree with him.
They essentially are giving advice, they give fantasy advice, they give advice on how to fix the teams, they give advice on which games to see and who you should watch while their. I mean I don’t want a tax guy who doesn’t know anything about my taxes but knows how to get people to listen to him about taxes even if it is just his job to make money.
Absolutely. I’m not saying it is a good thing at all, just that it is a fact of life and makes their failure to work at honing their craft a bit more understandable. it just doesn’t seem to be necessary to attract listeners.
Maybe it isn’t the sports personality we should hold accountable but fellow sports fans but if someone doesn’t want to be educated you can’t force it on them.
Yay! More comparing the Yankees to Russian dictators!
I just want to say… God I hate Harold Reynolds, every time the man talks he is either saying something completely wrapped up in his bias or something he knows nothing about yet still acts like he is authority of it.
The man played mediocre baseball for a decade based on speed why does this entitle him to a job that I could do better?
Also if I ever have to hear Mitch Williams say Joba has a relievers mindset ever again I might throw my TV away, I can not remember how many times I have heard that argument thrown out with no backing whatsoever of fakes, simply “he spits and snorts and scratches and throws like a bull in a china shop” none of which has to do with Mariano Rivera the greatest closer of all time.
I generally tend to agree, though in terms of McCarver, even my friends who don’t consistently follow baseball realize he’s awful…
I saw Moshe’s post on twitter a few mins ago about who you’re writing for, and it’s an interesting question. While I passionately followed baseball, until a year or two ago I really didn’t look much past your standard stats (and things like OPS and such). Since then I’ve taken a greater interest in the sabermetrics stuff out there. It’s interesting and I definitely credit websites like this one (and TYU before), RAB, fangraphs, etc for pulling me into this stuff. But I admit I still feel a little outside of things, like I know what a good number for BABIP, wOBA and such are, but I wouldn’t go as far to say I totally understand all of it. All of this is basically just a call for help, anyone here have a recommendation for a good book that might help me get a better understanding of the math and concepts behind advanced stats? Or is just trying to go through the formulas as explained on websites the best way?
Fangraphs now has an excellent saber library under their glossary tab. That would be the best place to start.
I think its far more likely that the people who make such decisions are generally idiots who have no idea what people want and unless there are people in the streets with pitchforks will attempt to squeeze every last penny out of the status quo. And they should count their lucky stars they have a job at all.
Billionaires tend not to be “idiots”.
I just want to say that, like TomM, I’m not that hardcore of a fan. But I find Tim McCarver so much harder to listen to than Kruk, or Reynolds, or Sterling. It’s one thing to disagree with those guys because they are wrong. But I don’t get that McCarver actually says anything. I’ll hear something like, “He gets around the bases so quickly because he’s such a fast runner.” Uh, okay. Do the people who watch Two and a Half Men enjoy this type of nonsense?
I think the bar is pretty low for the masses, and the Fox executives would rather go with the known quantity. At least, I pray that is the case. As much as I agree that the masses are different, I just can’t get how anyone would prefer McCarver to any of the other people out there.
I think thinking that these guys should be smart is a lot like thinking politicians should be smart. The latter get elected because they’re good at winning elections. Rational, well-reasoned, and/or well-researched ideas or the lack of them has zero to do with how they got where they are.
Ditto announcers-they’re there because they’ve convinced the people who hire and fire announcers that they can get more folks to watch the broadcasts they’re part of.
I used to not like Francesca, but I now see his show as a pretty good comedy. (And it’s surprisingly more funny without his over-the-top sidekick.) He gets interviews with just about anyone in sports when he wants them, and even with all of his interruptions that’s enjoyable listening for me.
I don’t even mind Joe Buck anymore-tho’ McCarver is one annoying SOB.
People who run companies tend to not be like politicians, you can’t talk your way into billionaires of dollars, the owners of ESPN didn’t charm money out of the air, they haven’t stayed on TV being as integrated into everything as they are by just being good at bi-winning.
I think the reason people like McCarver stay around is the same reason that bias idiot Hawk stays employed, the appeal to the lowest common denomenator and in this country that is what gets you money. You don’t hire someone to talk about WAR, BABIP, FIP, xFIP, Etc… unless you want to specalize in stat heads but as we all point out stat heads will watch McCarver and these guys anyway because we love the game, even if they have Chris Berman ruining every Marshall Faulk highlight I’ve ever seen or Mitch Williams slobbering all over the Phillies and Harold Reynolds trying to pretend he wasn’t a role player.
The biggest base to target gets targeted and the specalized smaller groups fall in line because of no other choice.
McCarver is an absolute disgrace. He doesn’t know anything, doesn’t care to know anything, and continues to view the game through 60s/70s-colored glasses.
The crew at ESPN is right behind him, though. They were years late in getting rid of Miller/Morgan on SNB, and their stable of ex-players on BBTN is just atrocious. Kruk is horrible, Eduardo Perez is horrible, Vina is horrible, and Nomar was an absolute abortion on-air last year. Bobby V comes through with a decent point every now then, but I could be happy with just Ravech and Buck Showalter.
And Orel. He’s the only color guy on the whole network who’s worth anything.
Kruk is an ass.
ESPN began with some pretty good analysts, but they didn’t use the ‘let’s all hate this guy (or team)’ mantra enough, and that’s what brings the paying customers. It only took a short while for them to realize ripping the Yankees added viewers instead of subtracting them. I think a quote from Rita Skeeter in Harry Potter (of all places) sums it all up perfectly: “The (Daily) Prophet exists to sell itself, you silly girl.”
Let’s also not forget that a good majority of ESPN higher ups are Red Sox fans and many of the anchors/hosts of many of their daily shows are as well, Greenberg admitted that months ago on Mike and Mike to no ones surprise.
Hell the main host of Baseball Tonight is a huge Red Sox fan and it’s not hard to tell by how the tone changes when talking about or to the Yankees.
Best thing that ever happened was Gammons leaving. That at least closed the gap between Boston nuthuggers/Yankee haters and the rest of the crew at ESPN.
Too bad Kurkjian picked up where Gammons left off. He’s really only on the air anymore if he’s talking about meaningless statistical anamolies or the Red Sox pitching staff.
I at least wish they would hire at least 1 former Yankee player who doesn’t have outs with the team, Dave Winefield is an example of that and I don’t think Boone ever got over being let go in favor of Alex even if it was his fault he played basketball. After that they fill the rest of the former player roles with former Red Sox players like Nomar and Schilling.
Sean Casey and Kevin Millar are all over MLB Network as well, and when Peter Gammons left ESPN he took up dual gigs with, you guessed it MLB Network and NESN.
It just seems like at any one time you have the major baseball franchises represented on air with former players but with the Yankees you get Boomer being an ass on TBS.
Couldn’t agree more, Mo. The fact that McCarver is popular among baseball viewers tells me that the demographic of the baseball TV audience is much older than the demographic of internet users.
I don’t give a damn whether McCarver studies the newer statistical ways of studying players. That’s not what makes him intolerable. His “vapid commentary,” as you correctly called it, is one of many problems with the man.
Another problem is that he’s arrogant and absolutely never admits it when he misses a call. I can’t even begin to count the number of times Fox has shown a replay that clearly shows McCarver was wrong, yet McCarver arrogantly says the replay confirms what he said. I’m sick and tired of hearing McCarver’s baseball version of 1984: i.e., “If I said it happened that way, that’s what happened and f*** the replay.”
Another problem with McCarver is that he blatantly HATES the Yankees. It doesn’t speak well of Fox that they are willing to ostracize the biggest TV market in America. Now that’s arrogance worthy of Tim McCarver.
When the Yankees are on Fox, I put the Yankee radio station on and turn the sound off of the TV. That’s the only way to “listen” to a McCarver game. Fox’s baseball coverage is as slanted and intolerable to listen to as Fox “news.”
Joe Buck’s better at masking his Yankee hate but the two together is too much to handle sometimes in a losing postseason game. Overall I have just learned that you don’t win 27 World Titles without beating a bunch of team and stepping on a bunch of toes. On top of that we live in a “hate” society, anything successfull and good will be hated on and anyone trying to be the best will be blasted back down if they can do it and because of that 95% of anyone on sports TV has either had a team beaten by us or hasn’t won a bunch and hates us for “ruining” baseball.
One thing we must address here is that someone can be a hardcore fan and yet not be able to differentiate btwn sabermetrics and sabertooth tigers. The level of your proficiency–or lack thereof–with complex stats doesn’t necessarily equal the intensity of your devotion to any team. There are plenty of truly devoted fans who are all about the visceral aspect of the game–one of the reasons why big sluggers are still a huge draw–and couldn’t be bothered with advanced stats that might make them more informed, but won’t necessarily provide them more enjoyment of the game. I don’t think they want to hear someone go on and on about advanced stats during telecasts. (That’s what sites like this are for.) Your mileage may vary, of course.
As for McCarver, not a fan but I don’t pay too much attention to him. Sure his dumb comments make me groan, but I’m watching the game not counting on him for guidance; he’s just a less distracting background noise. Were I to be listening to him on the radio, however, that would be an issue. Otherwise, meh.
Speaking of radio, John Sterling’s HR calls are over the top, often ridiculous, and the mark of a true homer. But I love ‘em for their comic relief value and wouldn’t have it any other way.
Sterling’s calls are obvious shtick, when someone takes what is meant in jest overly seriously, I think it just reflects poorly on them. The awful job he does on play by play is a a valid complaint, but people need to lighten up on the HR calls.
I absolutely agree. I know plenty of big fans who have zero sabermetric interest.
As a British follower of the Yankees (who is passionate enough about the team to sit up watching games until 2.30am far more summer nights than his doctor would consider healthy, but whose understanding of the finer points of the game is still rudimentary compared to some of the folk on this blog) I read Moshe’s latest excellent post with a wry smile.
To me, the primary responsibility of a sports announcer – any sport – on a mainstream network is to ENTERTAIN the viewing public, and we’re kidding ourselves if we think that advanced analysis is entertaining for anyone outside a pretty small niche audience of hardcore baseball geeks. To a Brit, it’s a little odd that some announcers (step forward, Joe Buck and Jim Nantz to name two) are considered competent to commentate to national primetime audiences on multiple sports, because we tend to expect some level of specialist insight. We certainly expect announcers to get stuff right, and I gather that this may be an area of weakness for Tim McCarver, as it was for dear old Chip Caray. But we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that these guys are there to provide the mainstram audience with a degree of cosy familiarity that would never be created if they rattled off UZR figures the whole time. Most viewers couldn’t care less about such stuff.
My purpose here is not to defend Tim McCarver. Personally, I don’t think he ever added any value to a game that I watched, but nor did he ever actually spoil one – so I have no particular view on his contract renewal. But Fox would not continue to employ him if there wasn’t some demonstrable link between his work and the viewing figures for their coverage. If firing him would bring in more viewers, you can guarantee that they would do it without compunction.
“To a Brit, it’s a little odd that some announcers…are considered competent to commentate to national primetime audiences on multiple sports, because we tend to expect some level of specialist insight.”
I’ve often wondered about this myself. Hmm…Then again, I am—for the most part—a one sport fan. (Which, admittedly, is somewhat of an anomaly here in the US.)
[...] seen a different brand of fan, that analytical fan, come to the light (even if we’re not hogging the spotlight). Undoubtedly, we will influence our children’s view of baseball and who knows where it will [...]