OT: MLB's declining interest
- Thread starter AtlantaWhaler
- Start date
Great Idea's
Cut the games down as well.
Do one off playoffs like the NCAA. 1 game, move on or be eliminated not best of 5.
yotesreign
Registered User
Saw parts of a replay broadcast of today's Cubs/Dbacks game in Chicago - 7th inning and Wrigley Field stands looked maybe half empty. It also looked like it was pretty cold there today. Haven't see an announced attendance yet for today's game, but I don't remember lots of fans leaving after the 6th inning as a rule so I'm guessing the attendance was light today...
Moobles
Registered User
- Mar 15, 2009
- 2,555
- 0
Really like the instant review system proposed by a guy down there. I think a pitch clock would also be a great idea, though some purists would throw tantrums like you've never seen. Sure there's a couple minor logistics problems (what if the batter holds out for an automatic ball), but I'll laugh right in your face loudly if you tell me some of the guy's at the top couldn't figure out a way to make it work (have the umpire judge if the batter's ready and if he's deliberately stalling for the ball give him a strike...)
I don't think a salary cap is what's needed. Any arguments about 'parity' have to face the facts: yes, the top teams in the league do generally make the playoffs- but who's won the World Series over the last 10 years? 10 different teams. 20 years? 15 different teams. 30 years? 21 different teams. That's NUTS for a league that lets teams spend like they do (note I might be off on this a bit I just scanned over wiki, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong
). The problem is if you're a small market team, you won't always compete with the big market clubs on the free-market; but it doesn't seem like big market clubs are any better at winning World Series pennants than you are. The difference seems to actually come in FA: some small market owners are completely unwilling to spend on pricey stars, and so they end up getting let go to the big lcub. What's needed is much stronger enforcement of revenue sharing funds going back into the franchise, not the owner's pockets. Teams like KC and Pitts pocket the difference and stroll off laughing, their franchises profitable but sucky.
Reducing the number of games in the year is also good. Either remove interleague play and have them go back to the old exhibition format, or keep interleague play and chop down a bit more on intraleague play. Either way, with 15-20 reduced games you'd get the same quality of baseball in a year while not having to drag it out all the way until it starts to snow. Add an extra wild-card team in from each league like they've proposed and that'd be cool too.
I dunno about generating interest in the MLB though. I think they'll recover some fans as the steroid issues wear off. Any labor unrest in the NFL is sure to benefit the MLB somewhat. They're really got to be aggressive in pushing the sport though- both in America and outside the country. I'm actually very surprised they haven't made any concrete attempts to export the game to countries like India. A cultural-exchange between India and the U.S. to find suitable players for each sport would be pretty cool (and expensive)- I think they did try this a few years ago but it wasn't big in the news. There are plenty of Indian cricketers though whose skills could translate to pitching and bowling if given a chance.
I don't think a salary cap is what's needed. Any arguments about 'parity' have to face the facts: yes, the top teams in the league do generally make the playoffs- but who's won the World Series over the last 10 years? 10 different teams. 20 years? 15 different teams. 30 years? 21 different teams. That's NUTS for a league that lets teams spend like they do (note I might be off on this a bit I just scanned over wiki, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong
). The problem is if you're a small market team, you won't always compete with the big market clubs on the free-market; but it doesn't seem like big market clubs are any better at winning World Series pennants than you are. The difference seems to actually come in FA: some small market owners are completely unwilling to spend on pricey stars, and so they end up getting let go to the big lcub. What's needed is much stronger enforcement of revenue sharing funds going back into the franchise, not the owner's pockets. Teams like KC and Pitts pocket the difference and stroll off laughing, their franchises profitable but sucky.Reducing the number of games in the year is also good. Either remove interleague play and have them go back to the old exhibition format, or keep interleague play and chop down a bit more on intraleague play. Either way, with 15-20 reduced games you'd get the same quality of baseball in a year while not having to drag it out all the way until it starts to snow. Add an extra wild-card team in from each league like they've proposed and that'd be cool too.
I dunno about generating interest in the MLB though. I think they'll recover some fans as the steroid issues wear off. Any labor unrest in the NFL is sure to benefit the MLB somewhat. They're really got to be aggressive in pushing the sport though- both in America and outside the country. I'm actually very surprised they haven't made any concrete attempts to export the game to countries like India. A cultural-exchange between India and the U.S. to find suitable players for each sport would be pretty cool (and expensive)- I think they did try this a few years ago but it wasn't big in the news. There are plenty of Indian cricketers though whose skills could translate to pitching and bowling if given a chance.
I can't fathom how anyone would want to watch baseball. Looks like a game played at corporate picnics.
Oh he missed the ball. oh he missed the ball. oh he missed the ball.
Oh he missed the ball. oh he missed the ball. oh he missed the ball.
JohnLennon
Registered User
- Mar 26, 2011
- 5,787
- 1,558
This article explains a decline of youth interest in baseball and an increase in hockey.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703712504576232753156582750.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703712504576232753156582750.html
We just need to find a way to get the expos back. I won't be able to die happy unless Montreal gets the expos back 
I hope the continued lack of interest, couple with the retirement (or death, not that I wish it upon him) of Selig somehow leads to an opening for the expos to get a team back. A new ball park in the old port where they were going to build that new casino would be amazing
I hope the continued lack of interest, couple with the retirement (or death, not that I wish it upon him) of Selig somehow leads to an opening for the expos to get a team back. A new ball park in the old port where they were going to build that new casino would be amazing
kypredsfan
Smashville Subban
I wouldn't be too concerned with any attendance just yet. It's early and cold and on weeknights. Wait until summer. Plus, you play like 90 something home games. And television contracts. MLB is fine, imo.
Jeffrey93
Registered User
- Nov 7, 2007
- 4,335
- 46
No idea what this thread is about...haven't read a word of it.
Just wanted to say....I watched SportCentre tonight on TSN....and amazingly I didn't flip the channel when the baseball highlights came on.
I think they showed over 10 game's highlights.....I swear in that time I saw about 4,000,000 empty seats in the highlights. How on earth does that league make money with the payrolls they have?!?!
They must have one honey of a TV deal......
Just wanted to say....I watched SportCentre tonight on TSN....and amazingly I didn't flip the channel when the baseball highlights came on.
I think they showed over 10 game's highlights.....I swear in that time I saw about 4,000,000 empty seats in the highlights. How on earth does that league make money with the payrolls they have?!?!
They must have one honey of a TV deal......
Moobles
Registered User
- Mar 15, 2009
- 2,555
- 0
They play twice as many games as the NHL and their parks have like 4x the capacity. An NHL crowd in the MLB is a small crowd.
Blackhawkswincup
RIP Fugu
Started seeing empty seats at Wrigley last year
Cub fans might finally be smarting up to the fact that if you continue to blindly support a team it means that ownership will never be forced to try and build a real winner
HabsByTheBay
Registered User
The biggest supported teams have the most money. Baseball's a meritocracy in that way. If San Diego wanted to keep Adrian Gonzalez they could have done two things:
1) Actually tried to keep him (they didn't, and are running an artificially low payroll to collect revenue sharing checks).
2) Marketed their team better so that when they were in a tight pennant race in the National League west with the Giants, they weren't getting 22,000 people for games, at least half of whom had flown down from the Bay Area to root for the Giants.
Getting young players, who are the most valuable commodity in baseball (moreso than free agents, who are fool's gold) and marketing the hell out of your team will turn almost any team into a "big market" behemoth after a while.
The Phillies got a revenue sharing check in the past decade and look at them now. The Rangers and Giants are now big players and seeing the money roll in.
Last edited:
HabsByTheBay
Registered User
Other than Indian expatriates nobody will ever give a crap about cricket in America. Even their kids are baseball fans.
Every team makes money except the Tigers. The ONLY reason the Tigers lose money is because they run a top 5 payroll in a depressed dump of a city because Mike Illitch thinks it's a public service. Even the Rays and A's turn a profit every year.
Jeffrey93
Registered User
- Nov 7, 2007
- 4,335
- 46
And their payrolls seem to be about 10x that of the NHL.
Capacity means nothing unless it is too small.
From what I read the Jays averaged (more games yes) less than some NHL teams...but their TV ratings were amazing.
I look at the Jays and wonder how they can survive.....but they survive. There is a reason. I'm just wondering what people think that reason is....
i'm one of 'their kids', and i'd agree that cricket is failing its attempts at penetration in NA among expats' kids, but i'd argue that hockey (in canada) and basketball (in the US) are gaining far more of these expat's kids than baseball, from personal experience only of course.
last week my dad woke up at 3AM to go to a party to watch pakistan vs india. I watched 2 hockey games that night and was asleep before the game started. I know 90% of the children of those who went to that party, and their story is pretty much the same. My cousins and the children of my parent's friends in the US (MI, NJ, NY, PA, and IL based, +few TX and KS/MO) would say ncaa basketball or NBA instead of hockey.
kypredsfan
Smashville Subban
TV contracts. I only go to 1 or 2 games in Cincinnati a year because I live 3 1/2 hours away. But I sure will watch 60-75% of the games on tv. Also, my money goes to supporting the Predators first.
Baseball has a bunch of problems.
1) as others have mentioned, it's too bloody slow. Should be 20 seconds between pitches, max. I'll have baseball games on the TV when I'm doing something else to serve as vaguely interesting background noise, but I can't imagine trying to sit through a game in a stadium for 3 and half hours.
2) the steriod stuff was a major blow to MLB's credibility. The popularity of the sport rebounded significantly circa 2000 based on the hype around Sosa, McGwire, Bonds, etc. and when those guys were exposed as frauds I think a lot of people really gave up on the sport.
3) their salary system is just screwed. There are about 10 teams that have no hope of making the playoffs in the next 10 years, and about 10 teams that are contenders every year by virtue of absolutely ridiculous spending. The NL isn't as bad, but the AL is just a joke with the Yankee/Red Sox dominance and annual poaching of top players.
Even though quite a few different teams have won the World Series in the last 10 years, it's the *perception* as much as anything that's the problem. When the two most marquee teams spend so much, make the playoffs every year, and make headlines every offseason by signing the best free agents, the casual fan just turns out.
I'm a huge soccer fan who has largely tuned out the European leagues for the past couple years for the exact same reason.
1) as others have mentioned, it's too bloody slow. Should be 20 seconds between pitches, max. I'll have baseball games on the TV when I'm doing something else to serve as vaguely interesting background noise, but I can't imagine trying to sit through a game in a stadium for 3 and half hours.
2) the steriod stuff was a major blow to MLB's credibility. The popularity of the sport rebounded significantly circa 2000 based on the hype around Sosa, McGwire, Bonds, etc. and when those guys were exposed as frauds I think a lot of people really gave up on the sport.
3) their salary system is just screwed. There are about 10 teams that have no hope of making the playoffs in the next 10 years, and about 10 teams that are contenders every year by virtue of absolutely ridiculous spending. The NL isn't as bad, but the AL is just a joke with the Yankee/Red Sox dominance and annual poaching of top players.
Even though quite a few different teams have won the World Series in the last 10 years, it's the *perception* as much as anything that's the problem. When the two most marquee teams spend so much, make the playoffs every year, and make headlines every offseason by signing the best free agents, the casual fan just turns out.
I'm a huge soccer fan who has largely tuned out the European leagues for the past couple years for the exact same reason.
Kimi
Registered User
HabsByTheBay
Registered User
Sigh. As a baseball fan I shouldn't even really be responding: baseball has had people predicting its demise since the 1850s and it's never happened. This is a game that is embedded in North American culture and it's just not going anywhere. For all the caterwauling about how kids are playing less baseball (which is happening to pretty much every traditional sport as the move towards soccer accelerates) it's not having an effect on interest. Revenue, attendance and local TV ratings are very, very strong. National TV ratings stink, but they're a relatively small part of baseball's revenue stream and baseball is a local sport.
Nonetheless:
1) Steroids has had zero negative impact on baseball's popularity. Ignoring the fact that if you hate steroids the last thing you should be watching is the NFL (which has seen explosive TV ratings growth), attendance hit its all time high just before the recession and local TV ratings are better than ever.
2) 25 out of 30 teams have made the playoffs in the past decade. The teams that haven't are Baltimore, Toronto, KC, Pittsburgh and the Natspos. Baltimore, Toronto and the Natspos are not small market, no money teams...I think we can all agree on that, no? Baltimore's run by an interfering megalomaniac owner, TO's just not been quite good enough to overcome the Red Sox/Yankees and the Natspos are still recovering from years of MLB mismanagement. So that leaves KC and Pittsburgh, who have blown years of draft picks and made piles of crappy trades. Come on guys, I expect you all to know enough about baseball to understand trading Jermaine Dye for Neifi Perez shouldn't earn you a playoff spot.
Heck, the Yankees didn't make the playoffs in 2008, the Red Sox didn't make it last year (or 2006)...sure, these teams have a great chance every year, but baseball is not a fait accompli. This is not basketball or hockey where you can just book your playoff spot on Opening Day if you have enough talent no matter what goes wrong. The Yanks are still in a precarious position this year with their shaky rotation and though the Red Sox should be fine, they're 0-5.
Color me skeptical basketball holds on to their people. Like I said before, it just doesn't do well with people once they hit adulthood. I played cricket with some sons of Indian expatriates, and they all wore Giants caps in the field and talked about Barry Bonds (this was a couple years ago).
Nonetheless:
1) Steroids has had zero negative impact on baseball's popularity. Ignoring the fact that if you hate steroids the last thing you should be watching is the NFL (which has seen explosive TV ratings growth), attendance hit its all time high just before the recession and local TV ratings are better than ever.
2) 25 out of 30 teams have made the playoffs in the past decade. The teams that haven't are Baltimore, Toronto, KC, Pittsburgh and the Natspos. Baltimore, Toronto and the Natspos are not small market, no money teams...I think we can all agree on that, no? Baltimore's run by an interfering megalomaniac owner, TO's just not been quite good enough to overcome the Red Sox/Yankees and the Natspos are still recovering from years of MLB mismanagement. So that leaves KC and Pittsburgh, who have blown years of draft picks and made piles of crappy trades. Come on guys, I expect you all to know enough about baseball to understand trading Jermaine Dye for Neifi Perez shouldn't earn you a playoff spot.
Heck, the Yankees didn't make the playoffs in 2008, the Red Sox didn't make it last year (or 2006)...sure, these teams have a great chance every year, but baseball is not a fait accompli. This is not basketball or hockey where you can just book your playoff spot on Opening Day if you have enough talent no matter what goes wrong. The Yanks are still in a precarious position this year with their shaky rotation and though the Red Sox should be fine, they're 0-5.
Color me skeptical basketball holds on to their people. Like I said before, it just doesn't do well with people once they hit adulthood. I played cricket with some sons of Indian expatriates, and they all wore Giants caps in the field and talked about Barry Bonds (this was a couple years ago).
Buck Aki Berg
Done with this place
That might be shorts-and-tshirt weather here in Ottawa, but in the southern US, that's cold. Just like when we gripe in the middle of July about how humid it is here, and people in Louisiana say "What humidity? This is nothing!"
It was awful IMO.
People say Baseball should not change, but the other three sports change all the time and MLS too.
Baseball's very slowly dying, but there's time for correction. However, that will mean some changes that might upset traditionalists (me), who grew up playing baseball first and still think Dizzy Dean is a folk hero.
One big change I want asap, ban all metal bats from organized baseball, period. The expense is unnecessary and can exceed $250, plus it arguably harms baseball development. And most importantly, people don't like metal bats. Once I held a wooden bat, I hated metal and always will.
A second point is to make sure the games end earlier during weeknights, so you can get more kids attending them. Speeding up the game can be done via minor tweaks, not insane rule changes like a 10 second pitch clock. Limit pick off attempts per inning, for instance, and require all umps to keep things moving quicker. Work with ballparks to reduce the walk up time of each hitter (get rid of music for each batter, maybe? It didn't exist 100 years ago!). Little things could do a lot of good.
One big change I want asap, ban all metal bats from organized baseball, period. The expense is unnecessary and can exceed $250, plus it arguably harms baseball development. And most importantly, people don't like metal bats. Once I held a wooden bat, I hated metal and always will.
A second point is to make sure the games end earlier during weeknights, so you can get more kids attending them. Speeding up the game can be done via minor tweaks, not insane rule changes like a 10 second pitch clock. Limit pick off attempts per inning, for instance, and require all umps to keep things moving quicker. Work with ballparks to reduce the walk up time of each hitter (get rid of music for each batter, maybe? It didn't exist 100 years ago!). Little things could do a lot of good.
I sort of agree. People forget that a league will always mka e less money if its too small market teams in the final. NY, Chi, LA, Bos, Phi, even ATL/SF/DAL/HOU/DET and WSH will always more.Really like the instant review system proposed by a guy down there. I think a pitch clock would also be a great idea, though some purists would throw tantrums like you've never seen. Sure there's a couple minor logistics problems (what if the batter holds out for an automatic ball), but I'll laugh right in your face loudly if you tell me some of the guy's at the top couldn't figure out a way to make it work (have the umpire judge if the batter's ready and if he's deliberately stalling for the ball give him a strike...)
I don't think a salary cap is what's needed. Any arguments about 'parity' have to face the facts: yes, the top teams in the league do generally make the playoffs- but who's won the World Series over the last 10 years? 10 different teams. 20 years? 15 different teams. 30 years? 21 different teams. That's NUTS for a league that lets teams spend like they do (note I might be off on this a bit I just scanned over wiki, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong
Reducing the number of games in the year is also good. Either remove interleague play and have them go back to the old exhibition format, or keep interleague play and chop down a bit more on intraleague play. Either way, with 15-20 reduced games you'd get the same quality of baseball in a year while not having to drag it out all the way until it starts to snow. Add an extra wild-card team in from each league like they've proposed and that'd be cool too.
I dunno about generating interest in the MLB though. I think they'll recover some fans as the steroid issues wear off. Any labor unrest in the NFL is sure to benefit the MLB somewhat. They're really got to be aggressive in pushing the sport though- both in America and outside the country. I'm actually very surprised they haven't made any concrete attempts to export the game to countries like India. A cultural-exchange between India and the U.S. to find suitable players for each sport would be pretty cool (and expensive)- I think they did try this a few years ago but it wasn't big in the news. There are plenty of Indian cricketers though whose skills could translate to pitching and bowling if given a chance.
throatguzzler
Registered User
Cleveland: 9,025 (with the popular Red Sox in town)
- Who wants to go to a ballgame when it's 40 degrees out? For sure not me.
Florida: 10,482
- The entire state is a terrible sports market, this is no surprise.
Tampa: 13,173
- See above
Cincinnati: 11,821
- Weather's been terrible, it will pick up mid-May.
Toronto: 11,077
- The Minnesota series drew well. They're playing Oakland at the moment which fails to draw fans against any team. Also doesn't help the fact that the dome's closed and that there's a game today at 12:30 EST
Kansas City: 12,641
- Again, the weather. Once it starts to pick up weather wise KC will start to draw. Home opener was almost a sellout.
HM - Cubs: 27,039 (not like the Cubs to only sell 65% of the tickets)
- The Cubs never draw high this early on - again, it's most likely due to weather.
Yankees had over 40,000 announced, but this observation was from a blog:
- Yeah, definitely weather!
You're overreacting.
Buck Aki Berg
Done with this place
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Around Hockey XXV (All Non-Jackets Hockey Talk Here)- Latest: spintheblackcircle
-
-
