Vancouver Media Thread IV

[Frankie Blueberries]

If you are a radio host your job is to to attract listeners- it is like the sole way of driving revenue basically. So if you are the Nickleback of radio hosts and you have a lot of viewers ipso facto, you are a good radio host.

You can be an asshole or idiot or whateve, but you know how to do your job.

You've described what being highly successful is. That doesn't necessarily make someone 'good'. It's all subjective at the end of the day, but I think my Nickelback example gets the point across. They made highly successful music, but it doesn't necessarily make them a great band.

Another example: Fox News or Alex Jones. Do you think they're great news networks? They make tons of money and have a huge following....

 

[I am toxic]

You've described what being highly successful is. That doesn't necessarily make someone 'good'. It's all subjective at the end of the day, but I think my Nickelback example gets the point across. They made highly successful music, but it doesn't necessarily make them a great band.

Harlequin Romance sells a lot of books.





No doubt PoM has read them all.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Harlequin Romance sells a lot of books.





No doubt PoM has read them all.

I had to Google what those are and I kind of wish I didn't. Some of these are just like...I don't even know.

I am enjoying the irony of some posters using ratings as a measurement of a good radio host, but having previously dismissed objective stats like Benning running the 2nd worst team over a 4 year period to determine whether Benning is a good GM. Objective stats matter until they don't.

 

[Jay Cee]

You've described what being highly successful is. That doesn't necessarily make someone 'good'. It's all subjective at the end of the day, but I think my Nickelback example gets the point across. They made highly successful music, but it doesn't necessarily make them a great band.

Another example: Fox News or Alex Jones. Do you think they're great news networks? They make tons of money and have a huge following....

I would say Nickleback, Fox News, Alex Jones and Harlequin Romance are all good at what they do. When you are a good entertainer you have people listening who love you and hate you, especially in like the news or talk radio business. Donald Trump is extremely good at what he does. He has millions of people watching his press conferences every day just to hate on him. That doesn't make me a fan of any of those things.

I think you are thinking: "is really smart," or "has opinions I usually agree with" or "fits my aesthetic."

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

I would say Nickleback, Fox News, Alex Jones and Harlequin Romance are all good at what they do. When you are a good entertainer you have people listening who love you and hate you, especially in like the news or talk radio business. Donald Trump is extremely good at what he does. He has millions of people watching his press conferences every day just to hate on him. That doesn't make me a fan of any of those things.

I think you are thinking: "is really smart," or "has opinions I usually agree with" or "fits my aesthetic."

I'm thinking radio talk is a subjective art form that can't be objectively measured, and using ratings is only relevant to success, not the quality of the host. So when people point to ratings to say 1040 > 650, it's kind of a bullshit argument that only relates to the success of the station and not the quality provided.

 

[Jay Cee]

I'm thinking radio talk is a subjective art form that can't be objectively measured, and using ratings is only relevant to success, not the quality of the host. So when people point to ratings to say 1040 > 650, it's kind of a bullshit argument that only relates to the success of the station and not the quality provided.

Ok, fair but I prefer 1040 and I can't really say I know many people on 650 I would say I really like or find their show better compared to 1040. Shah is good, but then again I really don't like Andrew Walker or agree with anything he says, so it balances out there.

EDIT: I think Matt Sekeres is a knob. Is that something we can all agree on?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

I would say Nickleback, Fox News, Alex Jones and Harlequin Romance are all good at what they do. When you are a good entertainer you have people listening who love you and hate you, especially in like the news or talk radio business. Donald Trump is extremely good at what he does. He has millions of people watching his press conferences every day just to hate on him. That doesn't make me a fan of any of those things.

I think you are thinking: "is really smart," or "has opinions I usually agree with" or "fits my aesthetic."

Precisely, ...there is a tremendous appetite for so called 'trash', ..... Profit (ratings) is the desired end game.

Whether its 'good' or 'bad' is completely beside the point.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Precisely, ...there is a tremendous appetite for so called 'trash', ..... Profit (ratings) is the desired end game.

Whether its 'good' or 'bad' is completely beside the point.

I was following up on @Lucbourdon's posts about how Sat is a good talk show host and ratings don't tell the whole story. It's not besides the point, it was the point that was originally being made lmao.

 

[F A N]

If you're discussing what makes a good radio host, then ratings are largely irrelevant. It's the same as saying Nickleback is a great rock band because of their sales. Who cares.

I was discussing what makes a host a "star". A star host should be able to generate his own ratings and carry his partner. A host that got steamrolled in ratings with now two different partners and two different time slots is not a star. I don't care if you're a fan of this host and thinks he's very good. If I was a music executive and one of my rock bands that I think is an "average band" has sold over $50M albums and one of my rock banks that I think is really good has sold only $1M albums during the same period, the rock bank that sold $50M is my star client.

...what?
I said ratings don't matter when it comes to whether someone is a "good" radio host. I never discussed relevance in this context (ratings being irrelevant to whether someone is a GOOD radio host, not ratings making a host relevant/irrelevant). You completely misread my post.

If you are a radio host your job is to to attract listeners- it is like the sole way of driving revenue basically. So if you are the Nickleback of radio hosts and you have a lot of viewers ipso facto, you are a good radio host.

You can be an asshole or idiot or whateve, but you know how to do your job.

Agreed with Jay Cee. If you beat the best then you are the best. If you're a radio host your job is to attract listeners not put forth a clinic in radio hosting. It's sort of like Don Taylor. A lot of people here don't seem to think he's good anymore but if he's able to consistently generate good ratings, attract advertisers, and crush his competitors in ratings then he is a star host for 1040.

You've described what being highly successful is. That doesn't necessarily make someone 'good'. It's all subjective at the end of the day, but I think my Nickelback example gets the point across. They made highly successful music, but it doesn't necessarily make them a great band.

Another example: Fox News or Alex Jones. Do you think they're great news networks? They make tons of money and have a huge following....

What objectively makes a band great? Critics? I'm sure there's an "art" to everything, but I don't think most people care about the artistry of radio hosting. At the end of the day, a radio host is judged by its ratings. He's no good if he consistently gets beat.

I'm thinking radio talk is a subjective art form that can't be objectively measured, and using ratings is only relevant to success, not the quality of the host. So when people point to ratings to say 1040 > 650, it's kind of a bullshit argument that only relates to the success of the station and not the quality provided.

Except success is often tied to quality. Not every artist is some great artist who is underappreciated and overlooked.

 

[m9]

The one flaw in the "rock star" comparison is that it's still important for these stations to be sports radio and certain pre-requisites are required regardless of ratings. I'm not sure what Bro Jake's ratings were, but he was not qualified to fill the role on sports radio. Dave Pratt ended up so out-of-touch that I think he was in that boat near the end as well and he had great ratings for awhile. I'm sure Taylor Swift would put up great ratings hosting a show on 1040 - that doesn't mean she should have the job.

 

[F A N]

The one flaw in the "rock star" comparison is that it's still important for these stations to be sports radio and certain pre-requisites are required regardless of ratings. I'm not sure what Bro Jake's ratings were, but he was not qualified to fill the role on sports radio. Dave Pratt ended up so out-of-touch that I think he was in that boat near the end as well and he had great ratings for awhile. I'm sure Taylor Swift would put up great ratings hosting a show on 1040 - that doesn't mean she should have the job.

When you say "important" what exactly are you referring to? Why is it important? It's important that they discuss sports to meet licensing requirements but other than that there's no rule on who is "qualified" to host their own radio show. Hosts don't have to be a former high level athlete even at the high school level. Most hosts are just sports fans and even fan of one sport at that (with the job requiring hosts to watch and keep up with other sports). Are radio DJs qualified for the job because of their background as radio DJs? Are comedians and actors etc. who have their own podcasts qualified because of their podcast experience?

If Taylor Swift is willing to host a show on 1040 at Don Taylor type salary, which station wouldn't hire her on? She can just have guests on to talk about sports. If the ratings are good and advertisers are advertising what else is important?

On the subject of David Pratt, his ratings dropped didn't it? If radio was lucrative and Pratt had the #1 show then he would still be on air. I don't even know why this is even controversial. Ratings and corresponding advertisement money. That's the business.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

I was discussing what makes a host a "star". A star host should be able to generate his own ratings and carry his partner. A host that got steamrolled in ratings with now two different partners and two different time slots is not a star. I don't care if you're a fan of this host and thinks he's very good. If I was a music executive and one of my rock bands that I think is an "average band" has sold over $50M albums and one of my rock banks that I think is really good has sold only $1M albums during the same period, the rock bank that sold $50M is my star client.

Why should a fan care about the ratings? It has absolutely no bearing on enjoying the station. Your analogy of the music executive doesn't work since we don't have a stake in these radio stations.

Agreed with Jay Cee. If you beat the best then you are the best. If you're a radio host your job is to attract listeners not put forth a clinic in radio hosting. It's sort of like Don Taylor. A lot of people here don't seem to think he's good anymore but if he's able to consistently generate good ratings, attract advertisers, and crush his competitors in ratings then he is a star host for 1040.

If you could objectively measure the quality of them, then sure. It's such a silly thing to compare, saying one is superior over the other. It's like saying one musician is better than the other based on record sales. It's ridiculous and just outright dumb.

What objectively makes a band great? Critics? I'm sure there's an "art" to everything, but I don't think most people care about the artistry of radio hosting.

That's the point I'm making, yes. I'm using the word 'art' to describe the subjectivity of it, not necessarily in its form.

Except success is often tied to quality. Not every artist is some great artist who is underappreciated and overlooked.

Don't disagree, but that shouldn't be the main consideration for determining how good a radio talk show host is. Otherwise you might as well side with the mainstream opinion on everything to determine the quality of anything remotely subjective, which sounds stupid as shit to me.

 

[StreetHawk]

Listeners don't care what the ratings are. If you happen to like something that is less popular than something else, that is your choice.

As a business, can SN afford to continue to lag behind the TSN ratings? Probably not.

As for the hosts, also about bang for your buck. Is TSN paying Mike and Jason the same amount as Bro Jake and Pratt for one of the 2 premium time slots? Unlikely. If they can bring in similar ratings for less money, then making the change makes sense.

I switch stations all the time. Not a single host that I need to listen to compared to the other station.

Again for me, I prefer TSN's guests and experts more. But not a fan of their hosts. And since WFH, haven't listened to anything outside of the few minutes I hit the snooze button on my alarm in the morning.

 

[Fatass]

Listeners don't care what the ratings are. If you happen to like something that is less popular than something else, that is your choice.

As a business, can SN afford to continue to lag behind the TSN ratings? Probably not.

As for the hosts, also about bang for your buck. Is TSN paying Mike and Jason the same amount as Bro Jake and Pratt for one of the 2 premium time slots? Unlikely. If they can bring in similar ratings for less money, then making the change makes sense.

I switch stations all the time. Not a single host that I need to listen to compared to the other station.

Again for me, I prefer TSN's guests and experts more. But not a fan of their hosts. And since WFH, haven't listened to anything outside of the few minutes I hit the snooze button on my alarm in the morning.

650’s listeners literally number in the hundreds. They are the lowest listened to station. More people, by quite a lot really, listen to the all traffic station. Their hosts (except Sat and Randeep) are horrible. And for some insane reason they talk NFL and NBA more than hockey. Terrible programming.

 

[StreetHawk]

650’s listeners literally number in the hundreds. They are the lowest listened to station. More people, by quite a lot really, listen to the all traffic station. Their hosts (except Sat and Randeep) are horrible. And for some insane reason they talk NFL and NBA more than hockey. Terrible programming.

For me who follows nfl. I enjoy that. Cause there is nothing new about hockey unless the hosts and listeners are following the prospects who are actually playing overseas. Which is unlikely.

I would only be comparing SN to TSN not against other music or news stations. Different audiences.

 

[m9]

When you say "important" what exactly are you referring to? Why is it important? It's important that they discuss sports to meet licensing requirements but other than that there's no rule on who is "qualified" to host their own radio show. Hosts don't have to be a former high level athlete even at the high school level. Most hosts are just sports fans and even fan of one sport at that (with the job requiring hosts to watch and keep up with other sports). Are radio DJs qualified for the job because of their background as radio DJs? Are comedians and actors etc. who have their own podcasts qualified because of their podcast experience?

If Taylor Swift is willing to host a show on 1040 at Don Taylor type salary, which station wouldn't hire her on? She can just have guests on to talk about sports. If the ratings are good and advertisers are advertising what else is important?

On the subject of David Pratt, his ratings dropped didn't it? If radio was lucrative and Pratt had the #1 show then he would still be on air. I don't even know why this is even controversial. Ratings and corresponding advertisement money. That's the business.

They should be knowledgeable with sports, particularly hockey in this market. That knowledge should be at a pretty high level, too. I don't think that is too much to ask as a requirement for the job.

 

[F A N]

Why should a fan care about the ratings? It has absolutely no bearing on enjoying the station. Your analogy of the music executive doesn't work since we don't have a stake in these radio stations.

I think you're missing what was being discussed since you joined the discussion midway. But

If you could objectively measure the quality of them, then sure. It's such a silly thing to compare, saying one is superior over the other. It's like saying one musician is better than the other based on record sales. It's ridiculous and just outright dumb.

Like I said above, I didn't say anything about one host being better than another. If anything what I disagreed with is calling Satiar Shah a star when he got steamrolled in the ratings in two time slots against two different host pairings. As for musicians, musicians get compared to each other all the time, especially by fellow musicians. It's not silly at all. There are objective ways to compare one to another. I also don't think it's outright dumb to compare musicians based on record sales. To each his own, but if you and I were musicians and if I sold 50 million albums and you sold 100 and you're telling me you're better than me I'll just say sure, laugh, and walk away. I would just let you have at it because whether you are a better musician than I am means nothing to me. It's like in boxing. Boxer A can have better footwork, better ring IQ, better hand speed, better power, and no contest a better technical boxer, but if he has a glass chin and got KOed 3 out of 3 fights you can argue that Boxer A is better all you want. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.

Don't disagree, but that shouldn't be the main consideration for determining how good a radio talk show host is. Otherwise you might as well side with the mainstream opinion on everything to determine the quality of anything remotely subjective, which sounds stupid as shit to me.

What you are saying here makes sense if there is a following. If you're a good radio talk show host you expect to have a following or even grow your audience. You don't expect your ratings to nosedive while your supposedly lesser competitor extends their ratings lead over you.

Seriously though, what makes a good radio talk show host? Can a super boring host that very few people listen to be a good radio talk show host because "artistically" he's good? I think that from an artistic standpoint the answer is yes but from a practical standpoint the answer is no.

In sports we often judge based on winning.

 

[StreetHawk]

Mainstream isn't always the best quality. Either people like or dislike them. Very few who are at the top, people have a neutral opinion about them.

Results are ultimately results, be it record sales or movie ticket sales. Is Michelle Williams a better actor than Mark Walhberg? IMO, and most in the industry, they would say yes. But, Walhberg is the one getting the bigger paycheck and the top billing in movies. Williams is more selective in the roles she takes.

In that case, their goals are not the same.

When discussing local sports radio, their goals are the same. So, results do matter.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

I think you're missing what was being discussed since you joined the discussion midway. But

You were saying "you don't get the love for Shah" last page and went on to point to ratings. That's what I'm getting at here.

Like I said above, I didn't say anything about one host being better than another. If anything what I disagreed with is calling Satiar Shah a star when he got steamrolled in the ratings in two time slots against two different host pairings. As for musicians, musicians get compared to each other all the time, especially by fellow musicians. It's not silly at all. There are objective ways to compare one to another. I also don't think it's outright dumb to compare musicians based on record sales. To each his own, but if you and I were musicians and if I sold 50 million albums and you sold 100 and you're telling me you're better than me I'll just say sure, laugh, and walk away. I would just let you have at it because whether you are a better musician than I am means nothing to me. It's like in boxing. Boxer A can have better footwork, better ring IQ, better hand speed, better power, and no contest a better technical boxer, but if he has a glass chin and got KOed 3 out of 3 fights you can argue that Boxer A is better all you want. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.

I think we're just going in circles, I don't see much more value here. Success can be a factor for determining how great a radio talk show is, but it shouldn't be the determining factor. Like I said, as a listener, why should I care about ratings when picking which station is better? There is no reasonable explanation for why that should matter to us when judging the hosts.

Seriously though, what makes a good radio talk show host? Can a super boring host that very few people listen to be a good radio talk show host because "artistically" he's good? I think that from an artistic standpoint the answer is yes but from a practical standpoint the answer is no.

History would say your take is laughable. Didn't Dr. Seuss get rejected by like 100 publishers before landing his first deal? What a bum. And what is a "practical standpoint" in this context? If you're referring to the revenue/business side of things, then I don't see how this is relevant to us as listeners.

In sports we often judge based on winning.

Radio talk shows aren't sports. I don't even know why you brought this up. Just like sports agents aren't athletes. Just because an activity is related to something, doesn't mean said activity is the same thing. How you thought it was appropriate to conflate these two, I will never know. I guess posting on these message boards is like participating in sports since we're discussing hockey on here.

 

[StreetHawk]

I think we're just going in circles, I don't see much more value here. Success can be a factor for determining how great a radio talk show is, but it shouldn't be the determining factor. Like I said, as a listener, why should I care about ratings when picking which station is better? There is no reasonable explanation for why that should matter to us when judging the hosts.

Individually, we will like what we like. So, you shouldn't care about ratings.

On the bigger picture though, if someone you like is losing the ratings battle very badly, the chances of that host remaining on the air is going to decline. So, in that sense, ratings do matter.

If you were a fan of Darling/Lawrence on the SN morning show, then their poor ratings ended up with SN making a change to their hosts. Part of the business. James C. has been there the entire 3 years, so to me, he should be on shaky ground.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Individually, we will like what we like. So, you shouldn't care about ratings.

On the bigger picture though, if someone you like is losing the ratings battle very badly, the chances of that host remaining on the air is going to decline. So, in that sense, ratings do matter.

If you were a fan of Darling/Lawrence on the SN morning show, then their poor ratings ended up with SN making a change to their hosts. Part of the business. James C. has been there the entire 3 years, so to me, he should be on shaky ground.

Right, but that's beyond my control so why should I care? I'm not saying ratings don't have an impact on things. But that's not what we're discussing here...

 

[F A N]

Mainstream isn't always the best quality. Either people like or dislike them. Very few who are at the top, people have a neutral opinion about them.

Results are ultimately results, be it record sales or movie ticket sales. Is Michelle Williams a better actor than Mark Walhberg? IMO, and most in the industry, they would say yes. But, Walhberg is the one getting the bigger paycheck and the top billing in movies. Williams is more selective in the roles she takes.

In that case, their goals are not the same.

When discussing local sports radio, their goals are the same. So, results do matter.

I agree with your overall points although I think the Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg comparison is a poor one. Williams has won Golden Globe awards and is a multiple nominee for the Oscars for her performances. Clearly Williams is recognized as the better actor akin to a player who contended for the Hart trophy multiple times but paid less than a player who hasn't. When Michelle and Mark did a reshoot for their film, Williams was famously paid less than 1% of what Mark was paid. Clearly, in this case, it wasn't because Mark is/was a 99% better actor. I would argue that Michelle actually had top billing for the movie. She was front and center on the posters and her name came up first whereas Mark had an "and" beside his name.

 

[F A N]

You were saying "you don't get the love for Shah" last page and went on to point to ratings. That's what I'm getting at here.

And what was I responding to? I was responding to talk about how Shah was on an island by himself... poor Shah etc. So please explain to me his greatness despite the fact that Halford and Brough and Sekeres and Price kicked his ass in ratings? I feel there is this closet fan obsession here.

I think we're just going in circles, I don't see much more value here. Success can be a factor for determining how great a radio talk show is, but it shouldn't be the determining factor. Like I said, as a listener, why should I care about ratings when picking which station is better? There is no reasonable explanation for why that should matter to us when judging the hosts.

From your personal standpoint yes. But I mentioned (previously) that I wasn't a fan as a listener. Another poster has commented that they found him dry. The ratings suggest that the majority of listeners who tune into sports radio talk radio chose to listen to 1040 instead whether it was Halford and Brough or Sekeres and Price. You can talk all you want about determining factor but it seems to me that the market has clearly spoken.

History would say your take is laughable. Didn't Dr. Seuss get rejected by like 100 publishers before landing his first deal? What a bum. And what is a "practical standpoint" in this context? If you're referring to the revenue/business side of things, then I don't see how this is relevant to us as listeners.

History would say something about my take? Lol. Do you listen to the words coming out of your fingers? And google search says Dr. Seuss got rejected by 27 publishers not 100. Way to exaggerate. Anyhow, I'm not talking about a radio host pitching his show to executives here. I'm talking about a radio show host who has been on air for years and on a prominent channel who drew fewer and fewer listeners over time than his competition in two different time slots. This isn't a hidden talent just needs a chance situation. The Vancouver market has decided that they rather listen to someone else.

Radio talk shows aren't sports. I don't even know why you brought this up. Just like sports agents aren't athletes. Just because an activity is related to something, doesn't mean said activity is the same thing. How you thought it was appropriate to conflate these two, I will never know. I guess posting on these message boards is like participating in sports since we're discussing hockey on here.

I suggest that you learn to chill. This is a discussion forum discussing hockey (a sport). We're talking sports talk radio hosts whose job is to talk about sports. With advanced stats we measure a player's impact based on his contribution to winning on the theory that that is an objective way of evaluating a player. When the eye test and the stats don't fit then I believe in investigating further. We try to eliminate variables such as linemates and deployment. So even if you don't like evaluating sports talk radio hosts based on ratings that's just one of the few objective measurements we have.

Bottom line is that if you have a radio show host on a prominent channel who has had time, different host partners, and different time slots to build a following and he keeps drawing fewer and fewer listeners than his competition then I would start questioning whether that host is good at his job. Maybe it's not about who he's paired with, his time slot, or quality of competition. Perhaps the problem is him. Perhaps someone else could do a better job.

 

[Didalee Hed]

Ok, now i really need to hear taylor swift talk sports for 4 hours

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

And what was I responding to? I was responding to talk about how Shah was on an island by himself... poor Shah etc. So please explain to me his greatness despite the fact that Halford and Brough and Sekeres and Price kicked his ass in ratings? I feel there is this closet fan obsession here.

You then went on to say Shah isn't a "star" (I don't think any local radio host is, tbh) because of ratings. I don't really care for the 1040/650 rivalry, they're both not great IMO. Both stations have good hosts and bad ones and overall are pretty mediocre. I find it funny when people try to use irrelevant objective data to make a subjective point. This clearly seems like a hill you want to die on, just your entire argument is flawed from the outset. It's amusing because we seem to agree on some points about not being able to measure subjective music/art, which is basically why I think your whole argument doesn't make much sense or hold any water.

From your personal standpoint yes. But I mentioned (previously) that I wasn't a fan as a listener. Another poster has commented that they found him dry. The ratings suggest that the majority of listeners who tune into sports radio talk radio chose to listen to 1040 instead whether it was Halford and Brough or Sekeres and Price.

This is all fair and I never took a position on it. People are entitled to their own opinions of the radio stations and each side has merit. I'm agreeing with this as the whole assessment and comparison is subjective and open for interpretation. That's why the ratings argument is dumb. So in a way, this part of your post aligns with my opinion.

You can talk all you want about determining factor but it seems to me that the market has clearly spoken.

The disagreement wasn't over who is more successful or who has more listeners/better ratings. This part of your post makes me believe you don't really grasp what we were discussing. It was that you didn't think Shah is that great which speaks more to his abilities and qualities as a host, not what the mainstream opinion is. This comes off as a straw man argument as it has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

History would say something about my take? Lol. Do you listen to the words coming out of your fingers? And google search says Dr. Seuss got rejected by 27 publishers not 100. Way to exaggerate. Anyhow, I'm not talking about a radio host pitching his show to executives here. I'm talking about a radio show host who has been on air for years and on a prominent channel who drew fewer and fewer listeners over time than his competition in two different time slots. This isn't a hidden talent just needs a chance situation. The Vancouver market has decided that they rather listen to someone else.

Lol I wasn't trying to exaggerate, and 27 is still a large number - the point still stands. Did you purposefully miss the overarching point that people can be unsuccessful but still be talented (and in the Dr. Seuss example, find success later in their careers)? That's great about the Vancouver market, but see my point above - it has no bearing on what we were discussing. Are you purposefully missing the point? It's hard to tell over text.

I suggest that you learn to chill. This is a discussion forum discussing hockey (a sport). We're talking sports talk radio hosts whose job is to talk about sports. With advanced stats we measure a player's impact based on his contribution to winning on the theory that that is an objective way of evaluating a player. When the eye test and the stats don't fit then I believe in investigating further. We try to eliminate variables such as linemates and deployment. So even if you don't like evaluating sports talk radio hosts based on ratings that's just one of the few objective measurements we have.

Take heed to your own advice on the chill front. And hey man, I can at least stick to the issue and not veer off into strawmen arguments. Conflating talking about sports with the actual sport itself is inane; I'll just leave it at that. That was a slug to read through and I doubt many others are enjoying reading this since we've both already set out our points and the discussion hasn't advanced much since then, so I'll leave it at that. Have a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and Happy New Year