OT: MLB's declining interest

[Breakaway3527]

I don't care how popular baseball and cricket are, were and will be. The two sports lack the artistic plays you potentially have in other sports.

In baseball /Cricket you can only run in 1 direction. A player catches the ball and the only thing he decides is whether to throw it at second or third base. That is not exciting.

As a parent I can never subject my kid to the cruelty of waiting to bat every nine at bats.

Every baseball highlight looks the same. A pitch, a hit, ball goes in the stands, and someone running over home plate. What is the point of watching 162 games of that.

I love the beauty of how some of the goals in hockey develop and were completed. You do not have that artistic freedom in baseball/cricket.

I can go on but enough said. I rather spend my summers do more meaningful things.

 

[Dado]

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

Not the same. MLB playoffs are the equivalent of the second round of NHL playoffs. And there are a LOT of NHL teams that haven't been in the second round in the past decade.

 

[Roadrage]

Not the same. MLB playoffs are the equivalent of the second round of NHL playoffs. And there are a LOT of NHL teams that haven't been in the second round in the past decade.

Actually that isn't true. Only 6 franchises in total have not been to the 2nd round in the past decade (Coyotes, Islanders, Panthers, Predators, Thrashers, and Blue Jackets). That seems comparable to MLB playoffs then.

 

[arrbez]

I'm a big baseball fan, and even I feel that the salary-competitive structure is so flawed that its not exciting anymore. If you're a fan of the Yankees/Red Sox/Phillies ok, but if not its really depressing sometimes. For the fan's sake, changes are needed, however its likely not gonna happen. The model for small market owners has become simple, collect revenue sharing checks, spend as little as possible on payroll and be profitable. Why risk losing money to field a competitive team when you have this guarantee?

However we should note that this is the worst drawing time of the year normally.

Until MLB puts their Yankees-Sox boner away and thinks about the good of the game first and foremost, it's probably just going to get worse.

I love baseball and watch most Jays games. But I also grew up with back-to-back championships. I can imagine how hard it must be to attract kids to a baseball team that has had little chance of making the playoffs over the past 15 years (sometimes through being mediocre, sometimes due to the misfortune of playing in a division with Boston and New York).

 

[Melrose Munch]

Until MLB puts their Yankees-Sox boner away and thinks about the good of the game first and foremost, it's probably just going to get worse.

I love baseball and watch most Jays games. But I also grew up with back-to-back championships. I can imagine how hard it must be to attract kids to a baseball team that has had little chance of making the playoffs over the past 15 years (sometimes through being mediocre, sometimes due to the misfortune of playing in a division with Boston and New York).

When the Blue Jays won they were in that same division. And Rogers has more money than both those team owners combined, it is a fortune global 500 company. There is nothing stopping them from having the largest payroll.

 

[Morris Wanchuk]

Games thrive in how they are viewed by the home audience.

Baseball was big in the past century because it is great for the radio. To me its really the only sport that makes sense on it. Now with TV, football is king and baseball is declining.

I look at it this way for my generation (those born in the 1980s). A grandfather was a baseball nut. He played the game everywhere he could find, stayed up late listening to it on the radio and once it came on TV it was like heaven. He passed that love down to his son. But his son also began to get into football. He like the cheer leaders, the super bowl, the made for TV action. Now he has a son and though baseball is still in his radar, the son picks up football and goes with it. Baseball is slow and boring while football is only played 16 time a season and is great for a fast pace life.

This is by no means what my life was like. Hockey and Baseball are my favorite sports, followed distantly by football. But I feel like this is how Baseball and Football flip flopped.

 

[arrbez]

When the Blue Jays won they were in that same division. And Rogers has more money than both those team owners combined, it is a fortune global 500 company. There is nothing stopping them from having the largest payroll.

Right, and the Jays actually had the biggest payroll in the MLB in 1993 if I recall. The difference is that half the league was within $10 million of them back then. In 1993 the Blue Jays spent $11 million more than the median team. Right now the Yankees spend $120 million more than the median team.

Yes, Rogers is a corporate giant (and has promised to spend the big bucks when all the pieces are in place). But I don't think MLB's solution should be to expect every other team to spend as much as the Yankees. Not every team out there has a Rogers as an owner.

Contracts are massive now, and that creates huge disparity in talent, when a handful of teams can (or are willing to) spend 2-5x as much money as others. Hockey was clearly heading in that direction before the salary cap. As a Leaf fan I enjoyed the benefits of that, but I have no problem admitting that the league is better off with a salary cap.

I remember watching the Expos lose every single good player they produces in the 1990's. It still happens today. Look at the talent Oakland seems to let go of every year.

 

[Dado]

Actually that isn't true. Only 6 franchises in total have not been to the 2nd round in the past decade (Coyotes, Islanders, Panthers, Predators, Thrashers, and Blue Jackets).

That "only" is 20% of the league - an entire division's worth - and I disagree that a division's worth of teams isn't "a lot".

That seems comparable to MLB playoffs then.

Indeed. The claim that MLB is less competitive than NHL is without substance.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Right, and the Jays actually had the biggest payroll in the MLB in 1993 if I recall. The difference is that half the league was within $10 million of them back then. In 1993 the Blue Jays spent $11 million more than the median team. Right now the Yankees spend $120 million more than the median team.

Yes, Rogers is a corporate giant (and has promised to spend the big bucks when all the pieces are in place). But I don't think MLB's solution should be to expect every other team to spend as much as the Yankees. Not every team out there has a Rogers as an owner.

Contracts are massive now, and that creates huge disparity in talent, when a handful of teams can (or are willing to) spend 2-5x as much money as others. Hockey was clearly heading in that direction before the salary cap. As a Leaf fan I enjoyed the benefits of that, but I have no problem admitting that the league is better off with a salary cap.

I remember watching the Expos lose every single good player they produces in the 1990's. It still happens today. Look at the talent Oakland seems to let go of every year.

True, the money value has increased tenfold. It is true not every team has a rogers, but those that do should expect the team to do due diligence. For the record I hate the salary cap and I kind of like the way the MLB is set up, I honestly don't wanna watch Cleveland or Kansas City.

 

[HabsByTheBay]

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.

If the way to get ahead is to throw mountains of money at FAs, the Giants would be a pretty good counterexample. Zito wasn't even on the postseason roster.

 

[Roadrage]

That "only" is 20% of the league - an entire division's worth - and I disagree that a division's worth of teams isn't "a lot".



Indeed. The claim that MLB is less competitive than NHL is without substance.

Seeing as the MLB has 5 team divisons, then a division's worth of MLB teams has missed the playoffs this past decade as well.

Also, did you mean the claim that MLB is more competitive then NHL is without substance?

 

[worstfaceoffmanever]

Actually that isn't true. Only 6 franchises in total have not been to the 2nd round in the past decade (Coyotes, Islanders, Panthers, Predators, Thrashers, and Blue Jackets). That seems comparable to MLB playoffs then.

So then the NHL and MLB are on the same footing in terms of competition, despite the fact that MLB has no salary cap and teams spending into oblivion.

Until MLB puts their Yankees-Sox boner away and thinks about the good of the game first and foremost, it's probably just going to get worse.

The issue is not that ESPN loves the Yankees and Red Sox (which is understandable; two huge markets on the East Coast = $$$$$). The issue is that the overwhelming majority of teams - even the small-market bottom-feeders like Kansas City and Florida - are turning a profit one way or another. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the fact that all the clubs are healthy will end up killing baseball with the younger generation. In order for anything to change, teams have to stop making money off the current system, or there needs to be a serious change in the PA's philosophy (which there won't be, because this system gives the players the most money).

 

[Dado]

Also, did you mean the claim that MLB is more competitive then NHL is without substance?

No.

Because the NHL has a hard cap, which I've been assured increases parity, the fact that MLB has the same level of diversity while not having any spending cap at all indicates that MLB is, in fact, more competitive than the NHL.

 

[KevFu]

No.

Because the NHL has a hard cap, which I've been assured increases parity, the fact that MLB has the same level of diversity while not having any spending cap at all indicates that MLB is, in fact, more competitive than the NHL.

Yeah, but the MLB parity is pretty much based on geography. The Red Sox, Yankees are in the same division; the Phillies, Mets are in the same division and the schedule is super unbalanced compared to hockey.

MLB plays twice the number of games as the NHL.
But division rivals play three times as many times in MLB:

In the NHL, when you have one division that is really bad, the best team in that division will have a low point total because they still have 58 of 82 games (70%) outside their division.

In MLB, when you have one division that is really bad, that division plays only 55% outside their division (90 of 162). So they beat each other up and a horrible team can have a good record.

Since going to a division format, there has been at least one team getting "screwed" in terms of sitting home despite having a better record than someone who made the playoffs over half the time.

For example, the 2008 Mets (No. 2 in payroll) were left out of the playoffs with 89 wins while the NL West champ won 84 games.

Yes, there's always one rich club spending money on players who break down and they under-achieve, and there's always a team full of young cheap guys who over-achieve, but it's GREATLY aided by the fact that someone like the Mets not only has 36 games against the Phillies and Braves, but another nine against the Yankees and Red Sox in interleague (one year, the Mets played something like 80 games against the top 10 spending clubs -- 6 NYY, 3 BOS, 9 CHC, 9 LAD, 3 SEA, 4 LAA, 18 PHI, 18 ATL, 0 CWS; and missed the playoffs while the NL West division champ played like 24).

 

[Crazy_Ike]

The idea that MLB is somehow competitive and supporting by listing champions has been so thoroughly debunked it's ludicrous that anyone would continue to bring it up. Analysis of team performance vs excessively high team payroll shows extreme bias towards the high spending teams, especially the Yankees. There is no parity in baseball.

 

[Melrose Munch]

The idea that MLB is somehow competitive and supporting by listing champions has been so thoroughly debunked it's ludicrous that anyone would continue to bring it up. Analysis of team performance vs excessively high team payroll shows extreme bias towards the high spending teams, especially the Yankees. There is no parity in baseball.

And so what Ike, has that really affected their bottom line

Viewership is still higher than the NHL
They make more money
Pirates and Marlins themselves do not even want to change the system, only their fans do.

So they NHL has all this better stuff, when am I going to see some better results from this league. There are still 4 teams losing money in the NHL right now. Keep in mind I am not one of the Move all Teams to Canada brigade.

 

[John Price]

The problem with baseball is that teams stay bad pretty much forever. Pirates and KC haven't been good in eons. You can try to put your fancy schmancy economic caps in there to stop the Yankees (and don't forget, it's not only them like the typical baseball critic claims) AND OTHER BIG MARKET TEAMS from overspending on free agents, but that won't force teams like Pittsburgh and KC to actually spend to improve their team.

To some extent, parity is not as strong in MLB. Although a lot of different teams do manage to make the playoffs, it's usually a one-year deal. Take the Tigers or Cardinals, who got hot one year and have not been able to replicate their success since.

MLB needs a cap but also a floor, it's important to remember that. You can't just put in a cap and expect everything to change, because that won't force the bad teams to spend anything at all towards improving their product.

 

[Crazy_Ike]

Melrose, your expectations are unrealistic. Viewership of the NHL is much higher than the MLB in Canada, and the league makes far more money there than MLB does. I will let you think about how that relates to your argument and hopefully you will understand why your stance is unsupportable.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Melrose, your expectations are unrealistic. Viewership of the NHL is much higher than the MLB in Canada, and the league makes far more money there than MLB does. I will let you think about how that relates to your argument and hopefully you will understand why your stance is unsupportable.

The NHL is saturated in Canada. I want to see greater growth in the US, like you. I haven't seen it. Not this small year by year stuff.

 

[Melrose Munch]

The problem with baseball is that teams stay bad pretty much forever. Pirates and KC haven't been good in eons. You can try to put your fancy schmancy economic caps in there to stop the Yankees (and don't forget, it's not only them like the typical baseball critic claims) AND OTHER BIG MARKET TEAMS from overspending on free agents, but that won't force teams like Pittsburgh and KC to actually spend to improve their team.

To some extent, parity is not as strong in MLB. Although a lot of different teams do manage to make the playoffs, it's usually a one-year deal. Take the Tigers or Cardinals, who got hot one year and have not been able to replicate their success since.

MLB needs a cap but also a floor, it's important to remember that. You can't just put in a cap and expect everything to change, because that won't force the bad teams to spend anything at all towards improving their product.

That's what people forget. There is no incentive. Thanks for pointing this out.

 

[Valhuen]

Long-time Mariners and Red Sox fan, however my interest has waned over the years (though I was ecstatic to see the Sox finally beat the curse). For me a lot of it has to do with the doping scandal, it really hurt the credibility of the game. MLB has done little to address the major issues within, and that bothers me a great deal. In addition, as others have mentioned, sans a salary cap (and floor), unless you are a fan of one of the few dynasty teams, there is very little to cheer for. As an example, the Mariners have not been competitive in over a decade, it is hard to consistently root for a team in an environment where you know they will always be outspent.

 

[HabsByTheBay]

Long-time Mariners and Red Sox fan, however my interest has waned over the years (though I was ecstatic to see the Sox finally beat the curse). For me a lot of it has to do with the doping scandal, it really hurt the credibility of the game. MLB has done little to address the major issues within, and that bothers me a great deal. In addition, as others have mentioned, sans a salary cap (and floor), unless you are a fan of one of the few dynasty teams, there is very little to cheer for. As an example, the Mariners have not been competitive in over a decade, it is hard to consistently root for a team in an environment where you know they will always be outspent.

The Mariners are not competitive because they are idiots. They are the first and so far only team ever to spend $100 million on a 100 loss team.

 

[Melrose Munch]

The Mariners are not competitive because they are idiots. They are the first and so far only team ever to spend $100 million on a 100 loss team.

Wow really ?



That franchise.....

 

[Valhuen]

The Mariners are not competitive because they are idiots. They are the first and so far only team ever to spend $100 million on a 100 loss team.

Well, there is certainly that......

I really hope they turn it around soon, would be nice to see Ichiro on a winning team for once.

 

[BadHammy*]

Salary Cap+ Salary Floor= Win.