Author Topic: ESPN Coverage (2012)  (Read 6165 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bloo

  • Posts: 1892
  • We win. We lose. We win again.
ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Topic Start: January 04, 2012, 12:58:13 AM »
Poor Journalism right here: http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=7420065
1. The Nats do not "desperately" need a big bat in the middle of the lineup. They have Zim, Morse and possibly Harper.
2. Morse did not finish the season at first. Marrero did.
3. There have been no plans or discussions of moving Zimmerman to first base. That is completely theoretical.

2011 thread here:

http://www.wnff.net/index.php?topic=22260.0

Offline GburgNatsFan

  • Posts: 13404
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #1: January 04, 2012, 08:55:21 AM »
The Zimmerman-to-1B conjecture has me puzzled. He's arguably the best 3B glove in the Majors, was able to change his throwing motion to reduce the stress on an injured abdomen, and aside from that serious injury, has not been injured a lot. A few little nagging things, but not a lot. In eight years when he's in his mid thirties? Maybe.

I don't get it.

Poor Journalism right here: http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=7420065
1. The Nats do not "desperately" need a big bat in the middle of the lineup. They have Zim, Morse and possibly Harper.
2. Morse did not finish the season at first. Marrero did.
3. There have been no plans or discussions of moving Zimmerman to first base. That is completely theoretical.




Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 16200
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #2: January 04, 2012, 08:58:06 AM »
Look at the best third basemen by war- a lot are older (amram, belte), it's not loke shortstop where older players have to move- even ARod and his steroid deprived hip can still play there

Offline cmdterps44

  • Posts: 15536
  • Future
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #3: January 04, 2012, 09:19:14 AM »
Poor Journalism right here: http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=7420065
1. The Nats do not "desperately" need a big bat in the middle of the lineup. They have Zim, Morse and possibly Harper.
2. Morse did not finish the season at first. Marrero did.
3. There have been no plans or discussions of moving Zimmerman to first base. That is completely theoretical.



#'s 2 and 3 are bad but the 1st is a good point. We may "possibly" have Harper. I wouldn't be upset going into 2012 with Zim-Morse-Werth/LaRoche but we could use a lefty bat (Fielder) at 4. Our offense was sort of an issue last year.

Offline Lintyfresh85

  • Posts: 34314
  • Next year, maybe?
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #4: March 12, 2012, 02:24:19 PM »
Bump.

Disgusting.

CUMULATIVE STATISTICS: JAN. 7-MARCH 8
Total time: 3998.25 minutes
Time (minus commercials): 3016.5
NBA: 767.75 (25.5%)
NFL: 737 minutes (24.4%)
College basketball: 556.75 (18.5%)
SportsCenter staples: 455.74 (15.11%)
Other: 204.25 (6.8%)
MLB: 114.25 (3.8%)
College football: 102 (3.4%)
NHL: 78.75 (2.6%)

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 16200
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #5: March 12, 2012, 02:29:29 PM »
What do you expect? Baseball and college football aren't in season and hockey is on a competitor's network

Online spidernat

  • Posts: 56621
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #6: March 12, 2012, 02:55:41 PM »
What do you expect? Baseball and college football aren't in season and hockey is on a competitor's network

Exactly. The NFL rules so that will never change but post the stats for July and August and you'll see how much air time MLB will get.

Offline PatsNats28

  • Posts: 8456
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #7: March 12, 2012, 03:10:20 PM »
The NHL is undercovered, but I don't give a crap about hockey, so it's fine with me.

Offline amanuel

  • Posts: 389
  • Go NATS!
    • RBSL
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #8: March 12, 2012, 03:32:45 PM »
who cares about hockey :D :couch:

Online Ali the Baseball Cat

  • Posts: 11647
  • babble on
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #9: March 12, 2012, 06:54:32 PM »
Living where you live, I find that quite understandable.

The NHL is undercovered, but I don't give a crap about hockey, so it's fine with me.


Offline PatsNats28

  • Posts: 8456
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #10: March 12, 2012, 08:56:49 PM »
Why? The Bruins are pretty popular right now... or is that a dig at the team? I wouldn't get it if it were, because I don't follow hockey :)

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 14514
  • Nats hitters = Maggie Lizer
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #11: March 12, 2012, 09:30:39 PM »
I think he's calling Boston fans bandwagon hockey fans.

Offline BerkeleyNat

  • Posts: 5026
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #12: March 12, 2012, 10:01:20 PM »
Why? The Bruins are pretty popular right now... or is that a dig at the team? I wouldn't get it if it were, because I don't follow hockey :)

I kind of thought it was a compliment. The Pats, Celtics, and Sox have been pretty successful over the past 10 years or so. It's easy to see where the Bruins would get lost in the mix, even though they seem to have pretty good support.  :)


Offline BerkeleyNat

  • Posts: 5026
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #13: March 12, 2012, 10:02:08 PM »

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 14514
  • Nats hitters = Maggie Lizer
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #14: March 12, 2012, 10:08:02 PM »
I kind of thought it was a compliment. The Pats, Celtics, and Sox have been pretty successful over the past 10 years or so. It's easy to see where the Bruins would get lost in the mix, even though they seem to have pretty good support.  :)

It makes no sense from that standpoint.  The Bruins are the last one to win a championship.


Offline BerkeleyNat

  • Posts: 5026
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #15: March 12, 2012, 10:10:44 PM »
It makes no sense from that standpoint.  The Bruins are the last one to win a championship.



Yeah, but I think they are always way behind the big three in terms of popularity in Boston.


Offline PatsNats28

  • Posts: 8456
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #16: March 13, 2012, 12:44:50 AM »
Yeah, but I think they are always way behind the big three in terms of popularity in Boston.



Yeah I'd say that's true, especially in terms of mainstream knowledge. At the moment though, they're definitely catching up, and there is a fairly significant population of non-diehard Bruin fans who like the Bruins more than the Sox or Celtics (neither of which is doing particularly well).

Online UMDNats

  • Posts: 12369
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #17: March 13, 2012, 12:55:36 AM »
Yeah I'd say that's true, especially in terms of mainstream knowledge. At the moment though, they're definitely catching up, and there is a fairly significant population of non-diehard Bruin fans who like the Bruins more than the Sox or Celtics (neither of which is doing particularly well).

boston is a great hockey town. tons of college hockey interest up there too.

Offline KnorrForYourMoney

  • Posts: 14514
  • Nats hitters = Maggie Lizer
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #18: March 13, 2012, 01:23:14 AM »
Yeah, but I think they are always way behind the big three in terms of popularity in Boston.

I had a Boston fan tell me that the Bruins are really huge up there right now.  Not as big as the Red Sox, but generating the type of fervor you'd only expect from a city like Detroit in the U.S.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 16200
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #19: March 13, 2012, 08:08:13 AM »
boston is a great hockey town. tons of college hockey interest up there too.

I'd rather see beanpot games than NHL - great hockey

Offline Minty Fresh

  • Posts: 17537
  • Let's Do This
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #20: March 13, 2012, 11:35:14 AM »
There are a good base of Bruins fans but they have their bandwagoners like any other city in the U.S.

College hockey in New England is unparalleled compared to anywhere in the country.


Offline PatsNats28

  • Posts: 8456
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #21: March 13, 2012, 12:43:11 PM »
Hockey is also the #1 sport at our high school - so I'd agree with the sentiments above on Boston hockey.

Online Ali the Baseball Cat

  • Posts: 11647
  • babble on
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #22: March 13, 2012, 03:28:53 PM »
Really?  Even the upper midwest?

There are a good base of Bruins fans but they have their bandwagoners like any other city in the U.S.

College hockey in New England is unparalleled compared to anywhere in the country.




Online Ali the Baseball Cat

  • Posts: 11647
  • babble on
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #23: March 13, 2012, 03:30:58 PM »
One good thing about ESPN is the airing of live EPL and Champions League games on weekday afternoons (e.g. Liverpool/Everton in half an hour on ESPN2).  And I believe they will be carrying Euro 2012 this summer. 

Offline Minty Fresh

  • Posts: 17537
  • Let's Do This
Re: ESPN Coverage (2012)
« Reply #24: March 13, 2012, 03:41:05 PM »
Really?  Even the upper midwest?

The Northeast has a much more densely populated, smaller area with which to work in.  If you include New York and New England there are 21 Division I schools competing in seven states.  On top of that, people in the Northeast are much more angry (in general) than Midwesterners.