OT: MLB's declining interest

[HabsByTheBay]

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?

Gouge? WTF? It's the highest grossing, best selling app on iTunes. the market has voted - and they love MLB At Bat.

And frankly getting live audio, tons of video highlights and free games on MLB.TV for 15 bucks is a STEAL. So is the MLB.TV video package, which is 2,000 games at 99/119 bucks. The NFL package for overseas subscribers has one tenth of the games at 250% the price - THAT'S gouging.

I don't care how much traffic Youtube does. By your theory the NHL should have seen a boon in popularity because they're hands off on Youtube (and NHL fans need youtube because NHL.com doesn't show fights and has pretty crappy highlights - unlike MLB, which shows everything). Is the NHL even as popular as it was 10 years ago? Doubt it.

 

[17*]

Gouge? WTF? It's the highest grossing, best selling app on iTunes. the market has voted - and they love MLB At Bat.

Regardless, it's still a drop in the bucket compared to youtube. I suggest that the majority of those subscribers are lifelong MLB fans to begin with. They are people that would support MLB regardless.

How many MLB fans are there. I would suggest anywhere from 5 million to 20 million, based on tv numbers, maybe higher. How many have downloaded this app? 50 000 to 250 000? What about all the rest of the MLB fans. Are they part of the internet generation that doesn't want to pay for things on the internet?

The mistake MLB is making in blocking youtube, and other online video sites, is that it eliminates this enormous forum as a means of attracting new fans. It's the equivalent of an internet blackout, and blackouts are not good long term.

 

[17*]

Is the NHL even as popular as it was 10 years ago? Doubt it.

That gets debated on this forum all the time. There are some indications that the NHL has seen an increase in popularity since the lockout. I am sure there are many threads on this forum that discuss this.

I don't care how much traffic Youtube does. By your theory the NHL should have seen a boon in popularity because they're hands off on Youtube (and NHL fans need youtube because NHL.com doesn't show fights and has pretty crappy highlights - unlike MLB, which shows everything).

The fact is, youtube is the number 3 site on the internet, following google and facebook. Why block a site like this? Why not cultivate it?

 

[HabsByTheBay]

Regardless, it's still a drop in the bucket compared to youtube. I suggest that the majority of those subscribers are lifelong MLB fans to begin with. They are people that would support MLB regardless.

How many MLB fans are there. I would suggest anywhere from 5 million to 20 million, based on tv numbers, maybe higher. How many have downloaded this app? 50 000 to 250 000? What about all the rest of the MLB fans. Are they part of the internet generation that doesn't want to pay for things on the internet?

The mistake MLB is making in blocking youtube, and other online video sites, is that it eliminates this enormous forum as a means of attracting new fans. It's the equivalent of an internet blackout, and blackouts are not good long term.

Anybody remotely interested in baseball is going to go to MLB.com, where they can see all the highlights they want FOR FREE, rather than Youtube.

 

[Ogopogo*]

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

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.

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.

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

The difference is, in baseball, you have the time to think through your next move. In hockey, you need to rely on instinct much of the time to make your next play.

That is the difference. Baseball is a slow, thought out strategic process where hockey is a fast game where you instinctively decide what to do in a second or less.

Both games are great; just different.

 

[obsenssive*]

whoever said baseball was part of north american culture is deluded.

to most Canadians baseball is a fringe sport. and in mexico for the most part they could care less. only in the carribean and central america is it popular in some countries.

 

[Shawa666]

whoever said baseball was part of north american culture is deluded.

to most Canadians baseball is a fringe sport. and in mexico for the most part they could care less. only in the carribean and central america is it popular in some countries.

Baseball has fallen in popularity in the recent years, it's true. It never was as popular as Hockey here in Canada probably, but it's still important culturally for baseball jargon to be understood here.

Baseball's popularity may have fallen in the US too. But it's still not a foreign concept either. So it must have some importance, culturally speaking.

And just a quick definition of culture for you: An integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for symbolic thought and social learning (from the Wiki)

So contrary to your statement, Baseball is not completely foreign to the north american culture. If it was as foerign as you claim, there would be no MLB.

 

[17*]

Baseball has fallen in popularity in the recent years, it's true. It never was as popular as Hockey here in Canada probably

Maybe not baseball, but softball and slo-pitch used to be huge. The ball diamonds were busy all summer long. It's really strange how at one time it was very popular, and then all of a sudden, there are all these empty ball diamonds not being used.

 

[Mr Forever]

Baseball is the most pure, obvious parallel with the failures of capitalism and the market and how it benefits some and destroys others. As good teams win and win they make more and more and they can keep signing players and winning and winning. Since there's no real legit restrictions on the cap, the rich team cannot be stopped. This lowers a fan's interest, knowing it's basically a 5 team league.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

This lowers a fan's interest, knowing it's basically a 5 team league.

Please refer to my post where 9 teams have won titles in the last 11 years, and then call it a 5 team league

 

[Dado]

...the rich team cannot be stopped.

And yet here we are, with MLB having a greater variety of champions than either NFL or NHL or (worst of all) NBA.

 

[htpwn]

And yet here we are, with MLB having a greater variety of champions than either NFL or NHL or (worst of all) NBA.

You also have a great number of teams that have among the longest playoff droughts in sports. This is partly due to the league is set up (only 8 of 30 teams make the playoffs every given year), but also due to the uneven salary structure. The amount of times that the Yankees and Red Sox have made the playoffs this past decade is ridiculous.

 

[HarrySPlinkett]

Anybody remotely interested in baseball is going to go to MLB.com, where they can see all the highlights they want FOR FREE, rather than Youtube.

Not really. If I really want to see highlights, I'll go to tsn.ca. ESPN.com sometimes gives me what I want. But not being able to watch Joe Carter's home run? Roy Halladay's perfect game? David Ortiz' walkoff home-run in game 4? Those aren't on Youtube. If I can watch Eli Manning to David Tyree for free, I should be able to see the MLB stuff.

I'm remotely interested in baseball, and I'm not remotely interested in going directly to MLB.com to search for random stuff that catches my interest while I'm floating around on youtube.

 

[HabsByTheBay]

Not really. If I really want to see highlights, I'll go to tsn.ca. ESPN.com sometimes gives me what I want. But not being able to watch Joe Carter's home run? Roy Halladay's perfect game? David Ortiz' walkoff home-run in game 4? Those aren't on Youtube. If I can watch Eli Manning to David Tyree for free, I should be able to see the MLB stuff.

I'm remotely interested in baseball, and I'm not remotely interested in going directly to MLB.com to search for random stuff that catches my interest while I'm floating around on youtube.

Here and Here.

There, took me 30 seconds to find the better quality, longer highlights of Joe Carter, David Ortiz and Roy Hallday than you'd find on Youtube.

I mean, I generally agree that older stuff should be available on youtube (if someone wants to upload the last inning of the 1977 NLCS then let them) but MLB shouldn't make apologies for your laziness. Nevermind that most neophyte baseball fans couldn't care less about Joe Carter.

 

[HabsByTheBay]

You also have a great number of teams that have among the longest playoff droughts in sports. This is partly due to the league is set up (only 8 of 30 teams make the playoffs every given year), but also due to the uneven salary structure. The amount of times that the Yankees and Red Sox have made the playoffs this past decade is ridiculous.

The Pirates and Royals do not compete with the Red Sox and Yankees, and they're two of the worst. The Central in both leagues are pretty even divisions...they're just exceptionally stupid teams.

The O's and the Jays have to compete with the Yankees and the Red Sox, but the Rays, who have way less money than both, have simply done it better.

Young players are the most valuable commodity in baseball. They're usually better than free agents, certainly cheaper and if you're smart you can buy out a couple of their free agent years anyway. That places a premium on teams who develop their own players. The O's have had a terrible farm system and the Jays haven't been that much better.

 

[htpwn]

The Pirates and Royals do not compete with the Red Sox and Yankees, and they're two of the worst. The Central in both leagues are pretty even divisions...they're just exceptionally stupid teams.

The O's and the Jays have to compete with the Yankees and the Red Sox, but the Rays, who have way less money than both, have simply done it better.

Young players are the most valuable commodity in baseball. They're usually better than free agents, certainly cheaper and if you're smart you can buy out a couple of their free agent years anyway. That places a premium on teams who develop their own players. The O's have had a terrible farm system and the Jays haven't been that much better.

Yes, neither the Jays or Orioles have used their resources perfectly. However the Jays in particular have had some very competitive teams over the past decade, but simply could not get in the playoffs for the sole fact that the Yankees and Red Sox were in their division spending double or triple on their payroll.

The Rays may have made that run to the World Series, but that only came after ten years of being one of the worst teams in the league. On top of that, they needed an off year by the Red Sox to capitalize. Now, after being competitive for three or four years, they are starting to lose star players in free agency to teams such as Boston and New York.

I really wish that I could find the numbers pertaining to the Yankees and Red Sox playoff appearances since the current system went into place. They showed how unbalanced the AL really is.

 

[HabsByTheBay]

Yes, neither the Jays or Orioles have used their resources perfectly. However the Jays in particular have had some very competitive teams over the past decade, but simply could not get in the playoffs for the sole fact that the Yankees and Red Sox were in their division spending double or triple on their payroll.

The Rays may have made that run to the World Series, but that only came after ten years of being one of the worst teams in the league. On top of that, they needed an off year by the Red Sox to capitalize. Now, after being competitive for three or four years, they are starting to lose star players in free agency to teams such as Boston and New York.

I really wish that I could find the numbers pertaining to the Yankees and Red Sox playoff appearances since the current system went into place. They showed how unbalanced the AL really is.

The Rays didn't get an off year from the Red Sox at all in 2008. They beat them the division and beat them for the pennant. Same with last year. Worse Red Sox/Yankees teams have made the playoffs.

The Rays were in the pits until recently but have achieved a lot under smart ownership and a smart GM with a tiny payroll. The Jays have had some good enough teams to make the playoffs in other divisions - probably the one team that can point to this so-called duopoly and feel aggrieved. However, they are also the one team that can really ratchet up their spending to match the two. They've got a loads of money owner, play in a huge market, broadcast their games coast to coast, have a modern stadium, etc. Pittsburgh's always going to be one of the lowest-revenue teams in baseball. It's not a big city, it's not a rich city. TO is big, rich and the Jays are the only team in the entire country.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Who downloads the MLB app? People who are already MLB fans.

Who pays for streaming access to the MLB library? People who are already MLB fans.

Who uses Youtube? Everyone.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Yes, neither the Jays or Orioles have used their resources perfectly. However the Jays in particular have had some very competitive teams over the past decade, but simply could not get in the playoffs for the sole fact that the Yankees and Red Sox were in their division spending double or triple on their payroll.

The Rays may have made that run to the World Series, but that only came after ten years of being one of the worst teams in the league. On top of that, they needed an off year by the Red Sox to capitalize. Now, after being competitive for three or four years, they are starting to lose star players in free agency to teams such as Boston and New York.

I really wish that I could find the numbers pertaining to the Yankees and Red Sox playoff appearances since the current system went into place. They showed how unbalanced the AL really is.

The Blue Jays have also spent the most at one point. There is nothing stopping rogers from fronting a 250 million dollar payroll.

 

[Roadrage]

Please refer to my post where 9 teams have won titles in the last 11 years, and then call it a 5 team league

And yet here we are, with MLB having a greater variety of champions than either NFL or NHL or (worst of all) NBA.

If you expand it to 15 years, the MLB still has 9 different teams winning the World Series.

Past 15 years MLB:
Yankees x5
Marlins x2
BoSox x2
DBacks
Angels
ChiSox
Cardinals
Phillies
Giants
Total: 9 different champions

Past 15 years NHL:
NJ x3
Avs x2
Red Wings x4
Stars
Lightning
Hurricanes
Ducks
Penguins
Blackhawks
Total: 9 different champions

Past 15 years NFL:
Packers x2
Broncos x2
Rams
Ravens
Patriots x3
Bucs
Steelers x2
Colts
Giants
Saints
Total: 10 different champions

Past 15 years NBA:
Bulls x3
Spurs x4
Lakers x5
Pistons
Heat
Celtics
Total: 6 different champions

So the variety of champs arguement does not hold much water except for the NBA in my eyes.

 

[412 Others]

If you expand it to 15 years, the MLB still has 9 different teams winning the World Series.

Past 15 years MLB:
Yankees x5
Marlins x2
BoSox x2
DBacks
Angels
ChiSox
Cardinals
Phillies
Giants
Total: 9 different champions

Past 15 years NHL:
NJ x3
Avs x2
Red Wings x4
Stars
Lightning
Hurricanes
Ducks
Penguins
Blackhawks
Total: 9 different champions

Past 15 years NFL:
Packers x2
Broncos x2
Rams
Ravens
Patriots x3
Bucs
Steelers x2
Colts
Giants
Saints
Total: 10 different champions

Past 15 years NBA:
Bulls x3
Spurs x4
Lakers x5
Pistons
Heat
Celtics
Total: 6 different champions

So the variety of champs arguement does not hold much water except for the NBA in my eyes.

anything can happen in a 7 game series. getting to the postseason is what seperates the mlb haves from the have nots. so yeah, it's pretty much a 5 team league.

 

[Roomtemperature]

anything can happen in a 7 game series. getting to the postseason is what seperates the mlb haves from the have nots. so yeah, it's pretty much a 5 team league.

The problem is that it takes so long for a team like the Astros or Padres to rebuild, nurture the draft picks, hope they hit, and then bring them up for a 2 year run that takes 5 years to produce before its stripped down again. Sure a great gm can reduce it with tough decisions and smart trades but what's a fan supposed to root for in those years inbetween before the run is ready and how gutted do they feel as they watch player after player leave or get traded

 

[worstfaceoffmanever]

anything can happen in a 7 game series. getting to the postseason is what seperates the mlb haves from the have nots. so yeah, it's pretty much a 5 team league.

Um, 25 of the 30 Major League clubs have made the playoffs in the last decade, so there must be quite a few haves in the Majors.

I don't disagree that the Yankees-Red Sox arms race is bad for baseball, but it's not like the so-called "have not" teams are struggling to get by. Pittsburgh and Florida make a tidy profit due to revenue sharing because they field teams of scrubs that consistently play .500 ball or worse, not in spite of it. Knowing that the owners of smaller clubs won't pay big money to young guys when they're good enough to earn it, MLB is willing to turn them into glorified farm teams for the clubs that will (much of the revenue sharing money is supposed to go towards "player development"), and so long as the Pittsburghs and Floridas are okay with that, nothing will change, even though the system is slowly killing small-market baseball.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Simply listing champions doesn't give you the entire picture of MLB's lack of parity. Look at how those teams were built, and what ended up happening to their star players:

2010 SF Giants
Aubrey Huff - Former Oriole MVP, traded to Detroit for a prospect and signed to a 1-year deal by SF.
Barry Zito - Acquired when SF offered him the largest pitching contract in MLB history.

2009 NY Yankees
Johnny Damon - Result of a bidding war between the Yankees and Sox.
Mark Teixeira - Has been bought three times by big-market teams.
Nick Swisher - Would have started for a lot of teams, hit 29 HR off the bench.
A-Rod - Need we go there?
Hideki Matsui - NYY straight-up outbid everyone for his services.
CC Sabathia - Bought from the small-market Brewers with the largest pitching deal in MLB history.
AJ Burnett - Made $30m more with the Yankees than with Toronto.

2008 Philadelphia Phillies
Jamie Moyer - Icon for the Mariners, traded to Philly for minor leaguers.
Brad Lidge - Acquired from the Astros for a bunch of nobodies.

2007 Boston Red Sox
Manny Ramirez - Bought out of Cleveland.
David Ortiz - Signed as a FA from the Twins (at the same time he started doing 'roids)
J.D. Drew - Shocked the Dodgers by opting out so he could sign a big contract with the Sox.
Josh Beckett - Acquired from Florida for minor leaguers.
Mike Lowell - Acquired from Florida for salary purposes in the same deal.
Curt Schilling - Traded from Arizona for next to nothing.

4 different champions, but there was no "parity" involved. The way to get ahead is to throw mountains of money at free agents, and offer garbage to small-market teams who can't afford to keep their star players. The teams which have been able to temporarily break into that big-spender category (thus giving the illusion of parity) are picked over by the fat cats soon thereafter -- see the Marlins, see the Diamondbacks.

 

[Roadrage]

Um, 25 of the 30 Major League clubs have made the playoffs in the last decade, so there must be quite a few haves in the Majors.
I don't disagree that the Yankees-Red Sox arms race is bad for baseball, but it's not like the so-called "have not" teams are struggling to get by. Pittsburgh and Florida make a tidy profit due to revenue sharing because they field teams of scrubs that consistently play .500 ball or worse, not in spite of it. Knowing that the owners of smaller clubs won't pay big money to young guys when they're good enough to earn it, MLB is willing to turn them into glorified farm teams for the clubs that will (much of the revenue sharing money is supposed to go towards "player development"), and so long as the Pittsburghs and Floridas are okay with that, nothing will change, even though the system is slowly killing small-market baseball.

To put in perspective then, only 1 NHL team (Florida Panthers) has not made the playoffs in the past decade.