ESPN reporters take shots at ESPN employee Tim Tebow
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with some lighthearted needling in a workplace environment.
It can lighten the mood and foster some friendly interactions.
When the needling goes too far and becomes mean-spirited, it becomes the job of the employer to step in and settle things down.
But what happens when it’s the employers who are promoting and pushing for things to go too far?
That’s the role ESPN finds itself in after it published a hackneyed, unnecessary and ultimately pointless article skewering Tim Tebow’s baseball prospects.
Tebow, who works for ESPN as an SEC college football analyst, was the target of a piece titled “When will Tim Tebow play in the majors?“
At first glance, the title and story seem innocent enough. ESPN is seemingly going to break down New York Mets GM Sandy Alderson’s comments about Tebow playing in the majors.
“Somebody asked me whether I think [Tebow will] be a major league player at some point,” Alderson told reporters Sunday. “I think he will play in the major leagues. That’s my guess. That’s my hope, and to some extent now after a year and a half, a modest expectation.”
It doesn’t take long for the article to gloss over Alderson’s innocuous comments and devolve into mindless Tebow bashing.
It begins by identifying ESPN writers Sam Miller and David Schoenfield. Naturally, one would assume that if a piece were to include two sets of opinions, those opinions would differ in some sort of way.
Not with this ESPN piece. Having two different people voice opinions on the topic of Tim Tebow playing in the major leagues was just a vehicle for ESPN to have twice the Tebow bashing.
First, Miller and Schoenfield heap praise on Alderson, while at the same time completely dismissing the notion that he knows what he’s talking about when it comes to Tebow.
“[Alderson] knows a player who hit .226/.309/.347 as a 29-year-old in Class-A is not a major league player or a legitimate prospect,” Schoenfield writes.
“That might be a wrong interpretation [that Alderson would promote Tebow to boost ticket sales], but it’s certainly more realistic than concluding a guy who hit .226/.309/.347 as a 29-year-old limited-range left fielder in Class-A is going to get good enough to even match those (terrible) numbers in the majors,” Miller writes.
Notice some similarities between the two comments?
When asked how well they think Tebow would perform if called to the majors, Schoenfield and Miller didn’t offer much in terms of variety of thought.
“Probably not well. If it actually happens, it would be for a few pinch-hitting appearances in blowouts,” Schoenfield writes.
“His WAR, in this case, would be around minus-3 wins per year, meaning, over a full season, he’d be about three wins worse than the Mets’ minor leaguer he got promoted ahead of,” Miller adds.
Never mind that Tebow is essentially entering just his second season as a pro baseball player. Schoenfield and Miller have already decided that Tebow will not get one iota better or improve at all with another year of reps and practice behind him.
Shockingly, Miller and Schoenfield had mildly divergent takes on how long Tebow will last in the majors.
“Other than using up a 40-man roster spot, it’s harmless enough to keep him around the rest of the month,” Miller said.
“Presumably, then, it will last until shame or criticism makes it too unpleasant for the Mets or Tebow,” Schoefield said.
Notice you don’t find any baseball analysis from Miller or Schoenfield. They just regurgitated statistics that a monkey with internet access could tell you. They do make sure to remind you that Tebow is not “legitimate” and is a risk to bring “shame” upon on the Mets.
Just to clarify, nobody is above being criticized. Tebow certainly has significant room to improve. His footwork in the outfield and his swing can both be worked on.
But there’s a difference between critiquing someone and senselessly bashing him for clicks. ESPN’s article clearly falls into the latter category.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
