Sports Media

Dirk41 2022-03-03 13:08:07 UTC #281

Bourn is interesting.

zambonir 2022-03-03 18:14:24 UTC #282

Kind of odd given how brief his Phillies career was but then local boy Ben Davis never played for them at all. Hoping Kratz is good. Also hoping they actually settle on a permanent team eventually (with LA retiring for real).

They made a lot of fuss about turning over control of the TV broadcast to Comcast to but it doesn't seem to have changed a thing really.

Ryles 2022-03-04 00:22:27 UTC #283

Stocker was 1 of the 3 Kevins before Frandsen got the role. Kevin Jordan was the other.

Philsmania 2022-03-04 04:15:10 UTC #284

Bourn was a 2007 Phillie.

zambonir 2022-03-04 16:52:38 UTC #285

I would just like them to have one broadcaster (out of what, eight now?) who understands advanced statistics and what teams are actually doing these days. I don't want the color guy to complain about the shift or the manager's bullpen choices; I want him to be able to explain and analyze them (and then he can still complain). What are Kevin Stocker's stories about playing in 1993 going to add to the broadcast (especially when we can already get that from Kruk on TV)? What can he even tell us about how SS is played in 2021 (both at the plate and in the shift era)?

Ironically I think Ruben Amaro might have the biggest clue, having forced himself to learn more during his time with Boston and NY. Kratz, having only recently retired and being involved with a lot of teams, might have the freshest insights into pitching programs.

I realize the teams probably prefer to keep the broadcasters in the dark too. They aren't going to announce which relievers aren't available before a game, or share proprietary bullpen scripts or match-up data.

andyb 2022-03-04 20:02:55 UTC #286

Maybe they should get the Ivy Leaguer (Doug Glanville) on one of the telecasts. He is probably more expensive than they want to pay for, but I bet he would be better about describing analytics than most of the other options.

zambonir 2022-03-04 20:40:52 UTC #287

Yeah I assume Glanville is just content with his current gigs (which includes NBC Chicago). Though I'm also not sure the fact that he is very smart and interesting = analytics-forward. But he'd still be good. Would almost have to be TV.

zambonir 2022-03-04 21:01:28 UTC #288

No sports news in here per se but still part of the big picture.

allentown 2022-03-04 22:42:18 UTC #289

I think Bourn would have been a good coaching addition -- a guy who understands both the high OBP game and how Phillies minor league development tried to force him to change into more of a HR/RBI guy. To be completely honest, Bourn is incredibly lucky that the Phillies decided to trade him. I shudder to think how much his career would have been diminished had he remained in Philly. He would have never put up 23 bWAR nor earned $49 million as a Phillies player. Also very glad that Dancy is with the Tigers and not the Phillies. Who sneers at a .400 OBP?

zambonir 2022-03-08 18:23:13 UTC #290

From the sound of things, more potential games that won't even be on local TV (or MLB.TV). I could be wrong but isn't that how the Facebook and YouTube deal worked?

Major League Baseball's newest TV partner: Apple.

At the company's event today, it announced a deal with the league to carry a Friday Night Baseball doubleheader on Apple TV+ starting this season. Games will be exclusively broadcast on the streaming service.
— Jeff Passan ( @JeffPassan ) March 8, 2022

andyb 2022-03-08 18:33:53 UTC #291

The exclusive part is interesting. Must be a lot more money. This sort of duplicates the old ESPN Wednesday exclusive package which was more costly than the Monday non-exclusive they used to have.

The more MLB moves on from RSN games the more their revenue sharing woes decrease. Imagine they really want to have a national in market streaming package eventually rather than let the RSN/Bally casino take over.

andyb 2022-03-08 19:14:01 UTC #292

This little story is interesting (could be in CBA thread too). Did ESPN suspend Jeff Passan for being too far on the side of the players?

zambonir 2022-03-08 20:02:08 UTC #293

There were reports of him saying things in private messages to players that would probably violate any old-school media policy about being too opinionated or too chummy with sources but arguably in this day and age being willing to say what he said in that podcast is almost required of media personalities. Except Passan is in the reporter role, not the Stephen A role.

zambonir 2022-03-09 00:38:38 UTC #294

Some details:

no local broadcast
but also no blackouts (obviously the two things go together)

and most importantly

"for a limited time, users will not require a subscription to Apple TV+"

But, you'll need the app, and obviously it will ultimately require a subscription. Ideally (for me) this will overlap with Ted Lasso S3

andyb 2022-03-09 02:12:21 UTC #295

That is just like a streaming service making the first episode of a series free. Guessing it will still require registration on the website. In the long run Apple is hoping for enough additional subscriptions to make whatever they spent on this ($200+ million a year?) worth it. ESPN went from $700 to $550 when they dropped their Monday and Wednesday telecasts. This makes up the difference for MLB. It is probably the only other exclusive they can grant as the RSNs do have rights and expectations also.

I think they are also still talking to Peacock about some more games there though that is less likely to be exclusive telecasts.

zambonir 2022-03-09 03:28:14 UTC #296

If you don't already have an Apple device (or an Apple ID for some other device/app), yeah. The question is will it be free for a month? A half-season? The entire first season? Kind of hard to say right now anyway when there are no games at all.

Apple TV+ is also pretty cheap, $4.99 a month or 49.99 a year, plus you get it free for a year if you buy some new hardware. Our most recent free 12 months expires June 4 - would I pay $4.99 a month to watch two Phillies games a month for four months? Certainly. 1 or fewer? Maybe not. But odds are there will be other things I want to watch during the time, Ted Lasso included.

The bigger concern with Peacock is what NBC did last year with those Phillies-Giants games. If memory serves those were also free, but that was probably little consolation to non-cordcutters, and also a pain for anyone who didn't already have a free Peacock account. At some point I could see all the Phillies games moving to Peacock, but Comcast web/TV customers would get it for free (in fact I believe the latter already do, even at the premium level).

andyb 2022-03-09 14:39:12 UTC #297

We are entering a world where sports are going to be splintered between 5 different streaming services. Apple will get some subscribers because of MLB but it is more likely to help keep the ones paying $4.99 a month (i.e. lessen the churn rate). People can get streaming services for a month or two and catch up on things and then rotate to other services. Sports changes that equation a bit. If Apple TV has sports (and we are talking more than baseball in the future) then people will want to watch that on a timely basis.

HBO Max adding soccer and eventually the NHL and NBA will probably make me more likely to keep it all year. Second tier services like Peacock and Paramount+ (where I am on free offers at the moment - Tmobile gave me 12 months of Paramount+ and American Express gave 3 free months of Peacock at the beginning of the olympics) are places where there are really on a couple of things I want to watch other than sports.

Local sports is really the big divider here. We are still a few years away from the cable bundle collapsing, but I think I am OK with that even if it means going from 4-5 streaming services up to 6-8 (without a live service like Youtube TV).

zambonir 2022-03-09 18:20:25 UTC #298

I still get HBO Max free with my grandfathered Directv Stream package. And have the Disney Bundle. I wouldn't have had ESPN+ two years ago but they added a lot more college last year and now of course it has fundamentally replaced what used to be a pretty pricey NHL and MLS package. I don't currently have Prime (which you can actually also get w/o the Amazon shipping component if you want) or Netflix so it's not really that many.

The question is what will/can ESPN do, and how much will it cost (unbundled).

I also picked up the partial NBA package for the rest of the season (Sixers only, using my MLB.TV money, to some extent).

andyb 2022-03-09 19:21:30 UTC #299

MLB also adds Monday and Wednesday games on Peacock to the Apple deal. Total of $115 million a year which is actually not that much. Guessing the Peacock games ($30 million) are mostly non-exclusive. The ESPN deal dropped from $700 to $550 million when they dropped Monday and Wednesday games and this replaces most of that drop.

TV deals now add up to about $65 million annually per team.

schillingfan 2022-03-09 21:58:53 UTC #300

Right now have a local stations plan which streams Xfinity with Xfinity/Comcast that comes with my Internet. It doesn’t include Philly sports NBC. This enables me to get cheap Sling, but that doesn’t have Sports either. I will have to make a decision once baseball starts. I would be thrilled if the Phillies went to Peacock, as I got their premium for the Olympics. I have six months left on my free Apple TV.