OT: MLB's declining interest

[worstfaceoffmanever]

I know that. I did the conversion and wasn't sure how 8C overnight lows could be considered "cold"

Ask a pitcher.


Interleague play is a means of balancing out the schedule so that the NL doesn't play more games than the AL. Imbalanced schedules or realigning the leagues to have an even number of teams would be required. The latter would also require a team to be off for up to four days at a time, which changes the way they throw their starters and can really mess with a team's rhythm if they're on a winning streak.

The only way to really fix scheduling issues is contraction, and I don't think baseball wants to go through that ordeal again so soon after they nearly contracted the Twins and Expos. Selig especially won't do something that drastic on the tail end of his tenure. No one wants to tarnish their legacy like that (as if his wasn't tarnished already enough).

 

[Rocket]

Other than Indian expatriates nobody will ever give a crap about cricket in America. Even their kids are baseball fans.

..hence their goal of making cricket more popular here. For a long time they had a screwed up model where you had to pay hundreds of dollars to watch the sport on TV. That was good for their bottom line for the short term as they milked the hardcore fans as much as possible but it came at the expense of the sport's long term growth. They finally came to their senses that to grow beyond the core immigrant base they needed to open up the sport to casual and potential fans. That triggered the new deal with ESPN networks where more than half a dozen events will be shown for free over the next 5 years.

Another major obstacle to growth, not just in North America but around the world, cricket had was that it's shortest version games used to last for 7-8 hours. So they finally came up with a version that takes about as long as a baseball game, called Twenty20. It's quickly becoming the most popular of the 3 formats, and it's this format that ICC wants to showcase the most in the US (more than 75% of the games involved in the ESPN deal are of Twenty20).

I don't expect cricket to ever come close to baseball's popularity but it can be popular enough over time to keep MLB/baseball on it's toes. No business likes losing a market share, however small, to an up-and-coming, competing business. They will need to adapt and speed up the game.

 

[Ogopogo*]

This is one thing that really turned me off of baseball: the idiotic notion that anyone who finds the sport boring is merely a simpleton. Please elaborate on the strategy behind hitting the ball so it's not caught. The only complicated part of baseball are the arcane rules, like being able to run through first base only, the infield fly (which does serve a purpose), foul tip into the catcher's glove is an out only on the third strike, striking out but getting on base because of a passed ball or wild pitch, etc. It's a hodge-podge mess of rules, not a grand scheme for brilliant minds.

A hitter must correctly predict what pitch will be thrown so he can hit it. With it taking less than a second for the ball to leave the pitcher's hand until it hits the catcher's glove, you need to know what is coming to hit it hard. You think fastball and a slider is thrown, you will likely swing and miss.

As a pitcher, you need to understand what pitch to throw and where to locate it. Do you go inside to move the hitter away from the plate then go outside where he may no longer be able to drive it? Do you throw the heat then mix in a change up to make him miss?

The duel between a hitter and pitcher is fascinating. Add in a baserunner in the 9th inning where you are down by a run and suddenly there are many potential moves. Bunt? Steal? Swing for the fence? Just put the ball in play?

There is plenty of strategy for those that understand.

 

[Roadrage]

A hitter must correctly predict what pitch will be thrown so he can hit it. With it taking less than a second for the ball to leave the pitcher's hand until it hits the catcher's glove, you need to know what is coming to hit it hard. You think fastball and a slider is thrown, you will likely swing and miss.

As a pitcher, you need to understand what pitch to throw and where to locate it. Do you go inside to move the hitter away from the plate then go outside where he may no longer be able to drive it? Do you throw the heat then mix in a change up to make him miss?
The duel between a hitter and pitcher is fascinating. Add in a baserunner in the 9th inning where you are down by a run and suddeny there are many potential moves. Bunt? Steal? Swing for the fence? Just put the ball in play?

There is plenty of strategy for those that understand.

I always thought that was the catchers job of calling a game no?

 

[Ogopogo*]

I always thought that was the catchers job of calling a game no?

I have never really understood why that is. A pitcher knows what he can throw and where he can throw it better than a catcher, IMO.

 

[Rocket]

I have never really understood why that is. A pitcher knows what he can throw and where he can throw it better than a catcher, IMO.

I'm guessing it's so the catchers know what to expect and can catch the balls cleanly. It reduces the chance of balls getting away and advancing the batter or base runners. Makes for slower game though, unlike cricket where it's always the bowlers' decision on what to throw.

 

[HabsByTheBay]

I'm guessing it's so the catchers know what to expect and can catch the balls cleanly. It reduces the chance of balls getting away and advancing the batter or base runners. Makes for slower game though, unlike cricket where it's always the bowlers' decision on what to throw.

Well, it's a mutual thing. The catcher suggests a pitch and if the pitcher doesn't agree he can always shake his head.

The catcher knowing what he's going to get so he isn't crossed up is crucial, as is a catcher's knowledge of the hitters.

Sometimes pitchers call their own games though - Don Sutton was famous for this. He'd spend a whole game whacking his thighs with his glove, which was his signs to his catcher (usually Steve Yeager).

 

[HabsByTheBay]

Completely disagree.

Philadelphia is big enough to compete as a big market team, San Diego will never have that ability unless the owner is willing to lose his shirt. A city the size of San Diego cannot produce the revenue required.

You are missing the point - baseball is MUCH more than a gate driven league. Local TV revenues are a huge part of the equation and, with the NY area having 16 million people and SD having maybe 1.2 million, there is no chance the Padres ever come close to being able to compete as a big market team.

New York is not the standard of a big market team, otherwise there would be two big market teams in all of baseball (or three, if you could the Dodgers).

Greater San Diego has three million people...it's not 1.2 million. They could also easily draw up the SoCal coast as the Angels and Dodgers could both hit a rut; the Pads pick off fans from territory that's not really closer to one than the other, etc.

San Diego also doesn't have an NHL or NBA team, so there's less local competition for the sports dollar. If you can mobilize your fanbase and the city that can easily support a $100 million payroll.

All of that doesn't mean they can spend Yankee money, but they aren't competing against the Yankees.

 

[krudmonk]

A hitter must correctly predict what pitch will be thrown so he can hit it. With it taking less than a second for the ball to leave the pitcher's hand until it hits the catcher's glove, you need to know what is coming to hit it hard. You think fastball and a slider is thrown, you will likely swing and miss.

That's more reaction time, athleticism and some guess work. Knowing your opponent's tendencies and weaknesses are part of all sport.

As a pitcher, you need to understand what pitch to throw and where to locate it. Do you go inside to move the hitter away from the plate then go outside where he may no longer be able to drive it? Do you throw the heat then mix in a change up to make him miss?

This type of analysis exists in most games, just without the time to stand on the mound and contemplate it over and over. A hockey player can similarly decide to shoot high, low, backhand, forehand, pass, etc. Is that not part of the strategy? Hardly a chess/checkers disparity.

The duel between a hitter and pitcher is fascinating. Add in a baserunner in the 9th inning where you are down by a run and suddenly there are many potential moves. Bunt? Steal? Swing for the fence? Just put the ball in play?

Of course there is thinking involved, but it is clearly amplified by the amount of time between pitches. Sometimes a defenseman can jump up in the play and score a goal or he can stay back to prevent a break the other way. Strategy just the same, but in a fraction of the time.

There is plenty of strategy for those that understand.

I played baseball for 11 years and was a huge fan until I was about 22. Pretty sure I know enough to critique it.

 

[BadHammy*]

I like the chess-type strategy, but MLB takes it to a completely different level. The fact that a team will bring a pinch hitter in just to face a specific pitcher from a particular side of the plate, then the other team will switch pitchers just to correct that matchup, then both of those players will be replaced before the start of the next inning... it gets annoying after a while. I'd rather see the same 8 fielders and maybe 3 pitchers throughout the game, with the micro-management saved for the times when it really truly does affect the outcome (such as bringing in a base-stealer after your slow 1st baseman hits a single in the 9th).

IMO, one of the things that makes it hard to like MLB is that the players constantly cycle between teams, and during the game there is a constant cycle of players in and out of the lineup, so it's very difficult for a younger or more casual fan to sit down and identify with the 9 guys on the field for their home team.

I agree it can be tough to watch, especially because of all the commercials in between. It's valid strategy but it does get old after a while, I must agree. I'd be fine with a limit on pitchers per game, partially because I'm tired of seeing starters go 4 and 1/3 innings

 

[Rink Rage]

Great, I hope they go out of business.

 

[Dado]

Selling cricket in America is no sillier than selling ice hockey in the desert and in the tropics.

 

[Mwd711]

I was just listening to one of our local sports stations, and they were discussing the declining interest in MLB. They started off by talking about declining television ratings (mentioned the Pro Bowl had a higher rating than some of the World Series), and then talked attendance.

I understand this is only a one day sample, but as a baseball fan, these figures have me worried. Attendance figures from last night:

Cleveland: 9,025 (with the popular Red Sox in town)
Florida: 10,482
Tampa: 13,173
Cincinnati: 11,821
Toronto: 11,077
Kansas City: 12,641
HM - Cubs: 27,039 (not like the Cubs to only sell 65% of the tickets)

Only 3 games last night had over 25,000. I know that, historically, attendance is lower before school lets out, but I've never seen numbers this low. Note that I am not picking on any one franchise or market. It appears baseball as a whole needs to make changes.

Here's the ironic thing about that. Regional television ratings are up this season. Cleveland has set records for the lowest attendance ever, yet their tv ratings are up 20% over this time last year. In, Washington, attendance is down but ratings are up 96%. The Orioles are up 55%, Kansas City set a record for a season opener. Same in St. Louis and Cincinnati which also set new records. Tampa Bay had its highest ratings since 1998, while the Marlins had their highest in three years. These are small samplings, but these are all up from the same point last season.

So, yes, attendance is woefully down in many places but that's also pretty common this time of year. And obviously, MLB doesnt hold the same national appeal as it did at one time but regionally, baseball is still very strong and that is showing up in the early television ratings. Very few teams are showing any declines.

 

[17*]

This article explains a decline of youth interest in baseball and an increase in hockey.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703712504576232753156582750.html

Is MLB still failing to embrace the internet generation? The NHL seems to encourage youtube, facebook etc. Meanwhile MLB sends out their copywrite nazis to remove any video highlights.

 

[HabsByTheBay]

Is MLB still failing to embrace the internet generation? The NHL seems to encourage youtube, facebook etc. Meanwhile MLB sends out their copywrite nazis to remove any video highlights.

Copyright, and any sort of moaning about youtube has to be tempered with MLB streaming games on their facebook page, their wildly successful app (that is not only available in the US, but actually works unlike the NHL one - trust me), and the groundbreaking success of MLB.TV.

 

[17*]

Copyright, and any sort of moaning about youtube has to be tempered with MLB streaming games on their facebook page, their wildly successful app (that is not only available in the US, but actually works unlike the NHL one - trust me), and the groundbreaking success of MLB.TV.

You must agree that by removing youtube videos, MLB is missing out on a huge forum and enormous exposure. And they do that all the time.

 

[Dado]

Is MLB still failing to embrace the internet generation?

MLB has done a better job of embracing the digital generation than any other major league, and both NHL and MLS are in fact piggybacking their pioneering efforts.

 

[17*]

MLB has done a better job of embracing the digital generation than any other major league, and both NHL and MLS are in fact piggybacking their pioneering efforts.

When Armando Galarraga was robbed of that perfect game there were hundreds of youtubes, but MLB took down most of them. The NHL wouldn't do this. That's where the NHL and MLB differ and I think MLB is alienating a generation of fans.

 

[Galchenioretty]

When Armando Galarraga was robbed of that perfect game there were hundreds of youtubes, but MLB took down most of them. The NHL wouldn't do this. That's where the NHL and MLB differ and I think MLB is alienating a generation of fans.

The MLB's online property is by far the best and most valuable in sports. Their App is the highest grossing app in IPhone/IPad and also, great.

MLB is doing anything but alienating a generation of fans, they've done great things with technology. The reason they took it down is because there are so many people paying for the online service (live game, archives, classic games, library for 5-6 years of games and incredible quality). Also, mlb.com has the highlights free on their site, so since they don't have a deal with youtube why would they leave it up.

 

[Dado]

When Armando Galarraga was robbed of that perfect game there were hundreds of youtubes, but MLB took down most of them. The NHL wouldn't do this. That's where the NHL and MLB differ and I think MLB is alienating a generation of fans.

They can kill the youtube leeching precisely because they provide so much legit access.

All that stuff is available directly from MLB. Either through website, or through the mobile MLB apps, or through MLB.tv on your AppleTV or PS3. Or etc etc etc. Historically, MLB's website was years ahead of the horrible kludge that passed for the NHL official website - in fact the NHL didn't catch up until they (essentially) licensed MLB's tech. And of course this is all apart from the major coverage MLB gets across US television and radio, which is generally lacking for the NHL.

No major league has done a more thorough job of providing immediate access across a wider set of platforms than MLB. That's why NHL and MLS are using their tech.

NHL is less likely to pull things from YouTube precisely because its the weak sister and needs whatever exposure it can scrounge up - although it should be noted that NHL listings have also disappeared from atdhe etc.

 

[HabsByTheBay]

The only thing MLB needs to be hands off on are people putting up clips from old games. That drives hardcore interest. It's fun being able to see Jacques Lemaire's goal from halfway in the 1971 finals. You can't really do that for MLB.

 

[Retail1LO*]

I used to watch plenty of ball games, but over the last couple of years I maybe watch 5 games all year long. The lack of parity in the league just doesn't give me any desire to watch anymore. If the league can implement some type of system that allows teams to compete on a more level playing field - I might start watching again.

While this might not be THE cause...it's definitely the reason I don't tune in to baseball. I find no great joy in watching any team succeed simply because it spent the most money to acquire every piece of available talent on the market during the offseason.

My greatest joy is when a team with a quarter-billion dollar payroll like the Yankess gets their ***** handed to them by a team like Florida with a fraction of the payroll.

For the most part, however, it's nearly impossible for an MLB team to make any longterm headway when there's no spending mechanism in place. Anyone cutting their chops in a small market is going to leave for a huge pay day as soon as they can. It's just a fact. It's nearly impossible for teams with a tighter budget to maintain top end talent for any length of time.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

This 17 guy needs to get with the times. Saying MLB isn' capitalizing on the internet because they pul things off youtube?

 

[17*]

This 17 guy needs to get with the times. Saying MLB isn' capitalizing on the internet because they pul things off youtube?

I never said MLB isn't capitalizing on the internet so don't misquote me. I said they were failing to embrace the internet generation. Big difference. And it's not just youtube videos, it's videos from sites all over the internet. I just used youtube as an example.

 

[17*]

They can kill the youtube leeching precisely because they provide so much legit access.

No major league has done a more thorough job of providing immediate access across a wider set of platforms than MLB. That's why NHL and MLS are using their tech.

If MLB's app is so good, why do they concern themselves with the poor quality vids uploaded to youtube?

All that baseball app is doing is allowing MLB to gouge their existing (and dwindling) fanbase.

Meanwhile, MLB eliminates youtube as a conduit for new fans.

Youtube gets over 1 billion hits per day.

It's hard to find statistics on app downloads, some suggest at bat lite has been downloaded 50 000 to 250 000 times.

Which one do you think better represents the internet generation?