Baseball Article

[scottsdale_joe]

Not sure this link will work.
Shaughnessy is a controversial Boston Globe sports reporter who often infuriates people.
He does me too, sometimes.
In this article he is spot on.
Read it here.

[Rubaboo]

Yes. Yesyesyes. To all of this.

[Lane]

Baseball has been dying for about 100 years: http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-d ... -articles/

I also suggest reading this: https://www.theringer.com/2017/6/23/160 ... af8fd764c1

Finally, I suggest listening to this, a discussion with former MLB Director of Business Public Relations Jeff Heckelman, talking about why baseball players don't become superstars the way that NBA players do. Interview starts at 32:01 https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/effecti ... ike-trout/


Now, I'm not trying to pile on, or suggest that Shaughnessy is completely wrong. It's perfectly valid to wish that baseball looked the same as it did when we were kids. I just agree more with the articles I posted here, that the changes are not really a big deal, and baseball is still as exciting (or more exciting) than ever.

Shaughnessy also fails to mention that decline in attendance could be due to terrible weather this year, or just the fact that games are so expensive to go to! There's also 81 home game for every team, which makes it real hard to compare to other sports when you're talking just attendance.

[RonCo]

Lots of talk about changes. Not a lot of apparent seriousness.

[bcslouck]

I can tell you, decline in attendance in Baltimore has to do with 2 things. One being, even after the O's being fairly successful the last few years, people not wanting to support the owner. And two is the riots a few years ago. The topic comes up on local sports radio and people still call in saying they don't come to the city at all anymore.

The O's have recognized some of this stuff and done some great things to get people in. They have the Kids Cheer Free program, which allows an adult to bring up to 2 kids under 11, I believe, for free. They also have concessions for kids that are like $1 hot dogs and such. On top of the concessions, you can bring in your own food, which is wonderful. The kids program to me really is a good idea. You need to target ways to get younger fans interested and the chances of them being in the park if parents don't have to pay for the whole family are definitely higher.

Now, the O's suck, so attendance still sucks. Honestly, I can't believe they are this bad. It's sad.

[GoldenOne]

Personally, I tend to blame GMs, and maybe even a little the fans, for this. If I'm a player and I am going to get paid for hitting HRs and my Ks dont matter, then that is what I am going to perfect. Is Chris Davis's contract really worth it now? Not saying it was when they gave it to him but they certainly weren't paying for his defense. Outlawing shifts? Why? I have no issues if Bryce Harper decides to bunt towards third in order to get on; wont take long and the shifts wont happen as often. Spend my money on 20+ HR guys that can hit for average - way more exciting for me to watch. More guys like Mookie Betts - high average and high OBP (and still has 22 HRs as of now) and there will be less strikeouts. Although, after 10 years of that writers will be complaining about all the offense and how we should raise the mound so pitchers can be more competitive.

Maybe its the build-it, win the WS, then burn-it mentality that needs to be addressed. Salary caps?

All-in-all, times change. The game changes. My daughters (both 16yo) care more about watching the games every day than I do these days. Its still a great game!

[Lane]

Although, after 10 years of that writers will be complaining about all the offense and how we should raise the mound so pitchers can be more competitive.

Yup, there's always gonna be something to complain about.

Maybe its the build-it, win the WS, then burn-it mentality that needs to be addressed. Salary caps?

Strongly against salary caps! Bad for the players. Perhaps a salary floor will help the tanking bit.

All-in-all, times change. The game changes. My daughters (both 16yo) care more about watching the games every day than I do these days. Its still a great game!

Great bottom line.

[GoldenOne]

Not a salary cap fan either - in any sport for that matter.

I do get it from the GM's point of view too. Hard to stick around unless you are winning and/or bring in the $$$. However, if you can convince the owner to hire you it should be based on a 3+ year plan (not The Plan, but a plan) and if that plan is focused on HRs then the owner cant bitch too much if that's what you spend his money on.

[Joshua Biddle]

I can tell you, decline in attendance in Baltimore has to do with 2 things. One being, even after the O's being fairly successful the last few years, people not wanting to support the owner. And two is the riots a few years ago. The topic comes up on local sports radio and people still call in saying they don't come to the city at all anymore.

The O's have recognized some of this stuff and done some great things to get people in. They have the Kids Cheer Free program, which allows an adult to bring up to 2 kids under 11, I believe, for free. They also have concessions for kids that are like $1 hot dogs and such. On top of the concessions, you can bring in your own food, which is wonderful. The kids program to me really is a good idea. You need to target ways to get younger fans interested and the chances of them being in the park if parents don't have to pay for the whole family are definitely higher.

Now, the O's suck, so attendance still sucks. Honestly, I can't believe they are this bad. It's sad.

Fan of the Phils/O's, I haven't made it down to Camden Yards in years, had no idea they allowed people to bring in their own food. As a NASCAR fan, that's something that I've found cool about race tracks, and wondered why franchises struggling with attendance in the other major professional sports hadn't given that a shot (was just in Pittsburgh this weekend to see PIT/PHI and it's a shame to see the attendance there so poor given the beauty of PNC Park), didn't know any actually had enacted that measure.

I also didn't foresee them crashing this hard. That Davis contract... ugh

[Ted]

I think the while the baseball is dying story is overdone, there is some truth to the argument that it's less entertaining. I'll be honest, I didn't pay attention to pace of play until the last couple seasons when it has been in the news a lot, and now I realize it is driving me nuts. I think it probably WAS the reason I got bored and turned games off in the 5th inning a decade ago, but simply wasn't aware of it at the time. Now, there are games I just don't watch because of who is starting.

I would also like to see a game with more balls in play, but I feel like that's really a secondary concern to the ridiculous amount of time between pitches now.

[Lane]

I think the while the baseball is dying story is overdone, there is some truth to the argument that it's less entertaining. I'll be honest, I didn't pay attention to pace of play until the last couple seasons when it has been in the news a lot, and now I realize it is driving me nuts. I think it probably WAS the reason I got bored and turned games off in the 5th inning a decade ago, but simply wasn't aware of it at the time. Now, there are games I just don't watch because of who is starting.

I would also like to see a game with more balls in play, but I feel like that's really a secondary concern to the ridiculous amount of time between pitches now.

While I definitely agree that the time between pitches can (and should) improve, I counter your more balls in play with Ben Lindbergh's argument, paraphrased.

I'd rather see less balls in play if it means more loud contact. Is it really gonna make your viewing experience if there's a couple more easy groundouts/flyouts per game?

[RonCo]

I think there are several problems with baseball, some of them having to do with the game itself, and others around the buisness and the amount of competition it has. Soccer., for example, is edging MLB for the #3 spot in attention right now. It's true that peopl ehave been writing baseball off at other times, but it's also true that those comments were often real and that baseball made changes to the game itself to increase interest--the most notable in my lifetime being the change to mound-height, strike zones, and the DH.

For me personally, a big difference is the availability of the game on TV. When I was a kid I watched the Braves and Cubs pretty much any day on WGN/TBS. Today, the broadcasting rights to games are odd contracts, so many times I sit down to catch a game and there's nothing on unless I want to give MLB a bunch of cash for their MLB network.

So, yeah, I think there are problems in baseball-land. Not total deathknell problems, but problems that need to be dealt with.

[Ted]

I think the while the baseball is dying story is overdone, there is some truth to the argument that it's less entertaining. I'll be honest, I didn't pay attention to pace of play until the last couple seasons when it has been in the news a lot, and now I realize it is driving me nuts. I think it probably WAS the reason I got bored and turned games off in the 5th inning a decade ago, but simply wasn't aware of it at the time. Now, there are games I just don't watch because of who is starting.

I would also like to see a game with more balls in play, but I feel like that's really a secondary concern to the ridiculous amount of time between pitches now.

While I definitely agree that the time between pitches can (and should) improve, I counter your more balls in play with Ben Lindbergh's argument, paraphrased.

I'd rather see less balls in play if it means more loud contact. Is it really gonna make your viewing experience if there's a couple more easy groundouts/flyouts per game?

I think Lindbergh in this spot is missing the point (an absolute rarity for him. He is one of my favorite baseball writers). When people say they want more balls in play, what they mean is they want more guys on the basepaths, more pressure on defense, more players running with contact being made, more runners and defenders moving, more "baseball action". "More balls in play" is just everyone's way of saying, "We want more of the things that are active baseball things." Walks and players taking strikes (swinging and missing is actually not that bad), and players standing around all day, is boring. Yes walks lead to more guys on base, but with the lack of other baseballs actually getting put into play, the guy standing on first for 15 minutes doesn't really excite that much.

[RonCo]

While I definitely agree that the time between pitches can (and should) improve, I counter your more balls in play with Ben Lindbergh's argument, paraphrased.

I'd rather see less balls in play if it means more loud contact. Is it really gonna make your viewing experience if there's a couple more easy groundouts/flyouts per game?

Any such question is a matter of personal opinion to some degree. The real question is "which game makes the most people vote 'no' with their pocketbooks?"

These questions have been debated often for years without raising much interest int he owners circles. Now attendance is down, and down a lot. So something will happen.

For me, the value of a strikeout from a viewership standpoint is variable, and depends a lot on who is doing the striking out. When Randy Johnson or Pedro Martinez is striking out 12 or 15, it's amazing. When six relievers strike out 2 apiece it's boring. Again, though, that's just my opinion. Other people may have different opinions.

[RonCo]

I think Lindbergh in this spot is missing the point (an absolute rarity for him. He is one of my favorite baseball writers). When people say they want more balls in play, what they mean is they want more guys on the basepaths, more pressure on defense, more players running with contact being made, more runners and defenders moving, more "baseball action". "More balls in play" is just everyone's way of saying, "We want more of the things that are active baseball things." Walks and players taking strikes (swinging and missing is actually not that bad), and players standing around all day, is boring. Yes walks lead to more guys on base, but with the lack of other baseballs actually getting put into play, the guy standing on first for 15 minutes doesn't really excite that much.

Yes.

A ground ball to Ozzie Smith meant you got to watch a world class ballet dancer, and hold your breath because you never knew when he was going to do something amazing. Every ball not in play is a reduction in the opportunity for something interesting to happen.

[Ted]

I think there are several problems with baseball, some of them having to do with the game itself, and others around the buisness and the amount of competition it has. Soccer., for example, is edging MLB for the #3 spot in attention right now. It's true that peopl ehave been writing baseball off at other times, but it's also true that those comments were often real and that baseball made changes to the game itself to increase interest--the most notable in my lifetime being the change to mound-height, strike zones, and the DH.

For me personally, a big difference is the availability of the game on TV. When I was a kid I watched the Braves and Cubs pretty much any day on WGN/TBS. Today, the broadcasting rights to games are odd contracts, so many times I sit down to catch a game and there's nothing on unless I want to give MLB a bunch of cash for their MLB network.

So, yeah, I think there are problems in baseball-land. Not total deathknell problems, but problems that need to be dealt with.

The TV thing is a big deal. It's incredible how sport after sport screws this up. Basically now, if you don't live in the home cable market for your team, and don't want to pay $100-200 a month for that cable, you can't watch your own team. When we were growing up, there was at least a game a week (often more) on network television. Now, that's not a viable model anymore, but if they want to get fans, they need to make at least some (a good number really) of the games cheaply/freely available to people, and market their stars.

Boxing is dead. It died because of pay per view. There were a number of other problems, but that is what essentially killed it. The greed of the promoters caused them to cut off their own fans. Baseball is doing the same thing. Cable is so damn expensive and terrible now compared to far cheaper options like netflix and hulu that many people just don't pay for it, and there's no alternative. Except stealing streams, which is what I do. I'd gladly pay a reasonable amount to watch baseball, but I'm not paying the cable company hundreds of dollars so that I can watch 10 or so sporting events a month. Tell me on the other hand, that I can watch a Cardinals game for $3 during the week, $5 on the weekend, and I'm in. I probably watch 80 or so games a year. The team could even offer me a direct to consumer package for unlimited access for $300-400 and I'd pay it. But 800-1200 for cable just so I can watch sports? Fuck that. And baseball needs to get on board with this or they are going to run into some real problems. I'm sure their agreements with the cable providers preclude them going direct to market (which is why MLB TV has local blackouts) but the next time negotiations come up, they need to wise up or they're going to go the way of boxing. If their product doesn't get seen, it doesn't matter in the long run about how much the cable companies give them.

[RonCo]

To me, the changes to the game itself could be quite small. Deaden the ball may be all that's needed...and if you need more, then move the pitching mound back to 60'10" or something. The game would look quite similar on screen, but the game would play quite differently.

These are the things about the analytically induced changes--the only way you change things is to change the weighting of events such that there's a reason not to focus on launch angles, and that that stolen base weighting makes the attempt worth it.

[Lane]

I think there are several problems with baseball, some of them having to do with the game itself, and others around the buisness and the amount of competition it has. Soccer., for example, is edging MLB for the #3 spot in attention right now. It's true that peopl ehave been writing baseball off at other times, but it's also true that those comments were often real and that baseball made changes to the game itself to increase interest--the most notable in my lifetime being the change to mound-height, strike zones, and the DH.

For me personally, a big difference is the availability of the game on TV. When I was a kid I watched the Braves and Cubs pretty much any day on WGN/TBS. Today, the broadcasting rights to games are odd contracts, so many times I sit down to catch a game and there's nothing on unless I want to give MLB a bunch of cash for their MLB network.

So, yeah, I think there are problems in baseball-land. Not total deathknell problems, but problems that need to be dealt with.

The TV thing is a big deal. It's incredible how sport after sport screws this up. Basically now, if you don't live in the home cable market for your team, and don't want to pay $100-200 a month for that cable, you can't watch your own team. When we were growing up, there was at least a game a week (often more) on network television. Now, that's not a viable model anymore, but if they want to get fans, they need to make at least some (a good number really) of the games cheaply/freely available to people, and market their stars.

Boxing is dead. It died because of pay per view. There were a number of other problems, but that is what essentially killed it. The greed of the promoters caused them to cut off their own fans. Baseball is doing the same thing. Cable is so damn expensive and terrible now compared to far cheaper options like netflix and hulu that many people just don't pay for it, and there's no alternative. Except stealing streams, which is what I do. I'd gladly pay a reasonable amount to watch baseball, but I'm not paying the cable company hundreds of dollars so that I can watch 10 or so sporting events a month. Tell me on the other hand, that I can watch a Cardinals game for $3 during the week, $5 on the weekend, and I'm in. I probably watch 80 or so games a year. The team could even offer me a direct to consumer package for unlimited access for $300-400 and I'd pay it. But 800-1200 for cable just so I can watch sports? Fuck that. And baseball needs to get on board with this or they are going to run into some real problems. I'm sure their agreements with the cable providers preclude them going direct to market (which is why MLB TV has local blackouts) but the next time negotiations come up, they need to wise up or they're going to go the way of boxing. If their product doesn't get seen, it doesn't matter in the long run about how much the cable companies give them.

Agree that the TV thing is a big deal. They're also idiots about people making GIFs and video highlights.

It's absurd that to watch the Dodgers I have to buy MLB.tv and then buy a VPN service to fake my location.

[Lane]

To me, the changes to the game itself could be quite small. Deaden the ball may be all that's needed...and if you need more, then move the pitching mound back to 60'10" or something. The game would look quite similar on screen, but the game would play quite differently.

These are the things about the analytically induced changes--the only way you change things is to change the weighting of events such that there's a reason not to focus on launch angles, and that that stolen base weighting makes the attempt worth it.

Moving the mound back is probably a great option.

[RonCo]

Deadening the ball would help to cut the value of pure launch angle hitting, moving the mound back would reduce the huge advantage of the 99-100 MPH fastball that most cookie-cutter relievers come out throwing. You might need to expand the strike zone more, but I doubt it. Do those two things together and you change the run scoring environment in exactly the ways you need to make the active part of baseball more valuable.

Choosing only to move the mound back more would basically improve a hitter's ability to get his bat on the ball--theoretically making more homers...which is part of the problem.