MLB employee doesn't think Mike Trout gets enough attention

Most of them know that the Blackhawks came from way back to boot their asses from the playoffs a couple years ago. Do the details really matter?

 

I don't think I'm out of touch. It's a matter of time. A helluva lot of the country isn't catching games that end at 1 am EST.

Yes, we all have game replays and highlights in the palms of our hands. But that's usually just used by seamheads and fantasy players.

A playoff run for Trout would help. And bigger personality would help. He's a great player, but the EC bias thing is a bit overplayed.

Plus, the East Coast is just better /unnecessary snark/

 

Let's set aside baseball's interest in marketing its stars.

Just looking at Trout as a person, a man pursuing excellence in his chosen craft and career - what interest should he have in seeking more attention and celebrity?

As a sports fan and a baseball fan, why should I be concerned that more people might know who Tim Tebow and Robert Griffin III than know who Trout is?

 

Kesler was not their best player.

It's market bias, give me a breakdown of the Flyers.

 

How in the hell is Tim Tebow an example of what's wrong with sports?

 

Of people who know or care about the Ducks, there are more on the East Coast than there are in the Anaheim area. The average local TV rating is 0.41.

Not East Coast bias so much as Don't Give A Shit Bias.

 

JC, I have more respect for your hockey knowledge than probably anybody else on this board. But I saw almost every Ducks game last season. Kesler was far and away their best player. If you dispute that, then I've given you too much credit. Who do you think it was? (Don't say Lindholm or Andersen or Getzlaf or Perry, you would be wrong).
As for this thread, we're talking East Coast Bias by the media, dudes. And the media influences the fans. I'm no longer in the media, but if I was and reporting on the NHL, I sure as hell would know more about the Flyers than the East Coast people apparently know about the Ducks. And I would know more about the Indians and Marlins than most of the East Coast guys know about the Angels.
By the way, TV ratings matter not at all. And thanks, Dick, for another meaningless post about a terrific hockey series two seasons ago that was decided by a minuscule margin. The Blackhawks "came from way back" to erase that 3-2 deficit in the series.
And, Grunt, just because the games end at 1 a.m. ET doesn't mean the media is allowed to ignore the West Coast teams.

 

Eye test vs real ways to measure production. Think I've never seen Kesler play? I'm comfortable in my assessment and enjoy that boat anchor contract.

 

Ah, you're parroting the guys in the NHL Sirius XM channel.
Q: What's the Ducks' biggest problem heading into this season?
A: That Getzlaf and Perry have 5 years left on their contracts and Kesler has 6.

That certainly is a big problem heading into this season, eh?. The $$ in the contracts won't be a huge problem because it won't change and the cap will go up. It will be a problem that their performance will decline. But not this season.
So who did you think was their best player last season?
And in determining this, did you see him play or was it a Whitman-esque basement computer analysis?

 

I've watched him since he's a rookie, of course I did. I'm sure your eye test will overide those numbers, I trust your scouting ability.

His contract will not hurt this year, but give it a couple, boat anchor. He's played hard minutes his whole career, he won't age well.

Getzlaff started terribly but if you think for a second that Perry and Getzlaff weren't better players I don't know what to tell you. This does not make Lesler not a good hockey player but I'd still take take Trout over all 3.

Now tell me why he was better, without cliches.

 

So Verducci and Trout are coworkers ...

 

Did this Trout thread just get Duckjacked?