Another John Kruk is a moron thread

[Vern Gagne 0]

Schilling should win the Cy Young because he has the most wins. Fucking dumbass.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

It's not like Schilling has a 4.75 ERA. He is legitimately the 2nd best pitcher in the American League this season. Besides, Schilling is an old teammate of Kruk, so of course Kruk is going to support the reasoning that favors Schilling. And it is worth remembering that Kruk doesn't have a vote

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Little conflict of interest there, eh John?

 

Next thing you know Peter Gammons will say something good about the BoSox...

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I think the better question is why anyone still watches Baseball Tonight. That show became completely vapid real quick.

[the max 0]

Harold Reynolds: "Omar Vizquel deserves the Hall of Fame!!!"

[Bored 0]

I think the better question is why anyone still watches Baseball Tonight. That show became completely vapid real quick.

It does have one redeeming quality left about it and that's the up to the minute highlights.

 

I actually mentioned back early in the season that Kruk had the stance of whoever has the most wins in the Cy Young and that he didn't care about ERA. Remember when he said Jarrod Washburn was his Cy Young pick through the first month of the season? Washburn had an ERA over 5 at the time but because he was getting a ridiculous amount of run support he led the league in the wins for a brief period of time. I guess in Kruk's mind a team is inspired to score runs for their pitcher.

[CanadianChris 0]

I'd love to see Kruk explain exactly why Randy Johnson shouldn't win the NL Cy. If he had Carl Pavano's record, they'd give him the trophy tomorrow.

[strummer 0]

I always thought that as soon as ESPN got into bed with the NFL and the NBA, they could have given a good God damn about baseball. There are some anchors on SportCenter that clearly know nothing about baseball (Steve Levy is the prime example, mispronouncing player's names left and right, Kevin Frazier before he left, Stuart Scott, even Kilborn had trouble doing baseball highlights). If you have ever listened to Mike and Mike In the Morning on ESPN Radio, Mike Greenberg flat out admitted he wasn't a baseball fan. After he said that I tried to stay away from that show as much as possible. Rich Eisen, in an interview after he left ESPN, said he felt like a loner because he was really the only anchor who loved baseball, all the other anchors only cared about the NBA and college basketball.

 

In the early 90's ESPN was really built around MLB, having a game nearly every day of the week, now they seem to cover baseball only because they have to. Their baseball coverage has gotten pathetic. BTN is a shell of it's former self with idiots like Kruk and Reynolds. The only thing going for it is the highlights and up to the minute updates. To me, it's like baseball is the red headed stephchild of the ESPN conglomerate

[Guest Staravenger]

It's not like Schilling has a 4.75 ERA. He is legitimately the 2nd best pitcher in the American League this season. Besides, Schilling is an old teammate of Kruk, so of course Kruk is going to support the reasoning that favors Schilling. And it is worth remembering that Kruk doesn't have a vote

They couldn't have been teammates for too long. Schilling made his ML Debut in 1991 as an Astro I think, and he could've only been a Phillie a year or two until Kruk left to the White Sox.

[The Man in Blak 0]

I think the better question is why anyone still watches Baseball Tonight. That show became completely vapid real quick.

Yeah, there's been a precipitous decline through ALL of ESPN's baseball programming - Kruk's brought an infectious idiocy to the proceedings on Baseball Tonight (who'da thunk it?), Joe Morgan is becoming less objective and more "angry old man"-ish, and Peter Gammons is about three years overdue for TV retirement.

[razazteca 0]

Peter Gammons is not at Pat Summerall levels of forgetfulness yet.

[The Czech Republic 0]

To me, it's like baseball is the red headed stephchild of the ESPN conglomerate

 

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

What really turned me on Kruk was when the Reds were on a hot streak earlier this season. His only reason for dissing the team was that he had never heard of the pitchers. Nothing legit like the pitchers were playing over their heads or the lack of relievers or Graves overall sucking. I mean seriously, if you're going to comment on a team at least research the team first. Don't be a lazy piece of shit and rip on someone for the sole reason of not knowing their name.

[Guest Brian]

Well, not that Kruk isn't an idiot, but part of what he was saying wasn't that Santana wasn't deserving, but there would be an East Coast bias in the voting. But he totally missed the boat with the wins thing.

[cabbageboy 0]

I think Santana will win it since I'm sure Pedro will get a few votes and split just enough with Schilling to ensure he doesn't win the Cy Young.

 

I still watch Baseball Tonight and like it, but that's mainly because I mostly pay attention to the highlights and ignore the hosts.

[Dr. Tom 0]

I liked Kruk at first, but he's really been sucking the meat missile for some time as an analyst. Baseball Tonight is still good for the up-to-date scores and highlights, but the analysis is awful. I think ESPN likes Kruk because they seem him as "outspoken," but don't realize that one can be an outspoken tard very easily. Meh, I'll take Rob Dibble or even Jeff Brantley over Kruk anyday.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Well, not that Kruk isn't an idiot, but part of what he was saying wasn't that Santana wasn't deserving, but there would be an East Coast bias in the voting. But he totally missed the boat with the wins thing.

That's what Reynolds said. Kruk agreed with him, but than said Schilling should win.

 

Another example of BTN's growing idiocy was giving Kyle Lohse a 6 has number 3 starter. First of all he's not the third starter. It's Jose Silva, second no way in hell is he a 6. He' lucky to be a 1. It just continues to show they don't follow any team but the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Cardnials, and Barry Bonds.

[Brett Favre 0]

Harold Reynolds: "Omar Vizquel deserves the Hall of Fame!!!"

I think he does too.

 

And Kruk isn't that much of an idiot, but if he thinks thats the reason Schilling deserves the CY Young, then he's a dumbass.

[mike546 0]

Well, not that Kruk isn't an idiot, but part of what he was saying wasn't that Santana wasn't deserving, but there would be an East Coast bias in the voting. But he totally missed the boat with the wins thing.

That's what Reynolds said. Kruk agreed with him, but than said Schilling should win.

 

Another example of BTN's growing idiocy was giving Kyle Lohse a 6 has number 3 starter. First of all he's not the third starter. It's Jose Silva, second no way in hell is he a 6. He' lucky to be a 1. It just continues to show they don't follow any team but the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Cardnials, and Barry Bonds.

The worst was Harold giving Kelvim Escobar a NINE.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Well, not that Kruk isn't an idiot, but part of what he was saying wasn't that Santana wasn't deserving, but there would be an East Coast bias in the voting. But he totally missed the boat with the wins thing.

 

Actually, there is little if any East Coast bias in awards voting. Heck, when the Yankees had their late 90s run, the award was constantly won by Texas Rangers.

 

Another example of BTN's growing idiocy was giving Kyle Lohse a 6 has number 3 starter. First of all he's not the third starter. It's Jose Silva, second no way in hell is he a 6.

 

Isn't that Carlos Silva?

[Guest Brian]

Oh yeah, Kruk said that everyone would see Schilling pitching against the Yanks down the stretch and it would compel them to vote for him.

[Cartman 0]

I have seen very many instances in baseball that the Cy Young went to the guy who had the most wins. As much as I disagree with that theory of voting for a Cy young winner, that is the way it goes many times.

 

Compare Kevin Brown to John Smoltz in 1996 and I believe Brown deserved the Cy Young but because Smoltz was on a better overall TEAM he got 24 wins and brown only had 17...but Brown was unhittable that year.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

"I think he’s going to win the Cy Young. I know Johan Santana’s having a great year, striking people out, leading the league in ERA. But I was always under the impression that whoever won the most was the best pitcher. Maybe I’m stupid for thinking that. I always thought the game’s about winning. Cy Young got 500-some wins - nobody needs to say, 'He had a good ERA and he struck out some guys.'"

 

"As far the the debate over the real pitching awards, the Cy Young, a couple quick thoughts on that. Everyone knows that they're going to give it to Roger Clemens, but is he the best pitcher in the NL? I don't think so. Sure, Rocket is great, Randy Johnson has been the most dominant. It's certainly not his fault his team stinks."

[Guest Staravenger]

So...he said the pitcher (Randy Johnson) with less wins in the NL should win, yet the guy (Johan Santana) whos slaughtered everyone he's faced for 3 months and has 1 less win than Schilling shouldn't?

 

Excuse me, but John Kruk...

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I read the article with the Santana/Schilling quote in the Philly Inquirer yesterday. I think it is apparent Kruk doesn't really feel all that strongly about wins = Cy Young award. He just wants to see his former teammate finally win a Cy Young Award. Nothing wrong with that, but it is not the cutting edge analysis I want to see on the most popular baseball discussion show on tv.

[Guest Staravenger]

Kruk continues his verbal blowing of Schilling, saying the Sox will win the Anahiem series because of him. He didn't say with him and strong offense, just him, like Schilling is the 2nd coming of Superman whos team can win just because of him pitching.

 

Edit: He also says Anahiem will lose because Colon won't be able to pitch good on 3 days rest...which really is a dumb theory, since 99% of the time in the Post-Season, starters only GET three days rest.

[iggymcfly 0]

Actually, I could give a fuck about the support for Schilling but that three days' rest argument does really piss me off. Since when do starters need four days of rest in the postseason anyway?

 

This is just some fallacy that started out a year or two ago. It wasn't that long ago that starters would pitch on three days' rest all season in a four-man rotation, and now they can't even do it four or five times in the playoffs when the season's on the line? That's fucking bullshit.