Is baseball really a joke nationally?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Hawk34 has it right. Like it or not, believe it or not, NASCAR is no longer a redneck/hick sport. Yeah, a lot of those types of people like it, but there's a huge amount of NASCAR fans in other parts of the country. They're very strong with female fans as well, as was noted. NASCAR claims to be the "number one spectator sport in the US." I'm not sure what they base that on, but when they can get over 100,000 people at a race, it says something. And a lot of those tickets are around 200 bucks a pop.

 

NASCAR has been doing a great job of updating their image. They tie in sponsors with huge crossover appeal, and bring in acts like Bon Jovi to perform before races.

 

I'm not a NASCAR follower personally, but I get sick of people trying to pigeon hole and stereotype things so much.

[Guest Brian]

Driving cars is a sport? Goddamn I'm an athlete.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

How much of that +8,458/game comes from the 5 biggest markets though? The argument is that baseball is a regional game and nothing you've said has proven that statement to be false. The top 10 teams draw as many fans as the bottom 20. 6 of the top 8 teams attendance wise come from 2 states (Cali & NY). Those 6 teams alone accounted for 20 of the 69 million fans (29%) that went to ballgames. Add in Oakland and that number swells to 32% of all attendance coming from 2 states. Since '86 the Yankees are drawing almost 2 million MORE per year which is about 25,000 more per game just from one team. A handful of markets are solely responsible for baseball's popularity. Outside of those markets most fans are relatively apathetic. How is baseball not a regional game?

 

The biggest attendance jump comes from Cleveland where they more than quadrupled their attendance. But they are a special case. Of course the largest attendance is going to come from the big markets. You would see that in the NFL if they played often enough. The thing is, it is not like they are pulling dead weight. There wasn't a single team in MLB that drew less than 1 million fans last season. Historically, the kinds of attendance MLB has pulled have only occured within the last 15 years or so. People forget that there used to be absolutely horrific markets for attendance, which we don't have anymore. Minor league attendance set a new record, and it isn't the big markets of NYC and LA boosting that.

 

So how is MLB not regional? Sixteen affliliated minor leagues. Nine viable independent leagues, with teams playing in all 48 states of the Continental U.S. Another 250 teams playing Division I college baseball, with a nationally televised championship. Baseball is the only sport where it's youth tournament is viewed on national television. Several national television contracts. A satellite radio contract, broadcasting every game to over 5 million subscribers. That's how.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Driving cars is a sport? Goddamn I'm an athlete.

No, but it is a competition. Quite physically demanding too.

[naiwf 0]

How much of that +8,458/game comes from the 5 biggest markets though? The argument is that baseball is a regional game and nothing you've said has proven that statement to be false. The top 10 teams draw as many fans as the bottom 20. 6 of the top 8 teams attendance wise come from 2 states (Cali & NY). Those 6 teams alone accounted for 20 of the 69 million fans (29%) that went to ballgames. Add in Oakland and that number swells to 32% of all attendance coming from 2 states. Since '86 the Yankees are drawing almost 2 million MORE per year which is about 25,000 more per game just from one team. A handful of markets are solely responsible for baseball's popularity. Outside of those markets most fans are relatively apathetic. How is baseball not a regional game?

 

The biggest attendance jump comes from Cleveland where they more than quadrupled their attendance. But they are a special case. Of course the largest attendance is going to come from the big markets. You would see that in the NFL if they played often enough. The thing is, it is not like they are pulling dead weight. There wasn't a single team in MLB that drew less than 1 million fans last season. Historically, the kinds of attendance MLB has pulled have only occured within the last 15 years or so. People forget that there used to be absolutely horrific markets for attendance, which we don't have anymore. Minor league attendance set a new record, and it isn't the big markets of NYC and LA boosting that.

 

So how is MLB not regional? Sixteen affliliated minor leagues. Nine viable independent leagues, with teams playing in all 48 states of the Continental U.S. Another 250 teams playing Division I college baseball, with a nationally televised championship. Baseball is the only sport where it's youth tournament is viewed on national television. Several national television contracts. A satellite radio contract, broadcasting every game to over 5 million subscribers. That's how.

 

When I think MLB I think MAJOR LEAGUE baseball, not the Toledo Mud Hens (they are a team right?), Brooklyn Cyclones, or the Texas A & M Aggies since they are NOT part of MAJOR LEAGUE Baseball. You're talking about baseball as a whole, well can we start including Pop Warner in when talking about football because their championship game is televised on ESPN? College hoops is more popular than pro hoops in many areas, but that doesn't help the NBA in any appreciable way. I hope you get my point. MLB is regional. What they do on a level no one can see, and even fewer care about is largely irrelevant to the discussion of MAJOR LEAGUE baseball in America. It's not the good ol' days anymore, and most sports fans in America are pretty happy about that.

[Guest Brian]

Minor league baseball players are professionals. The others are not.

 

Anyone want to do a comparison by percentage, which though still skewed, would be a much better comparison then straight up attendance numbers and averages?

[dh86 0]

baseball's main underlying problem is still it is the same teams every year basically buying up the talent and in the playoffs every year..people can claim im just bashing greatness...but it isnt really interesting to me..I am very sick of the Yankees,Red Sox,Cardinals,Angels,Dodgers..big market teams year in year out..yeah im a Tigers fan and thats part of the reason baseball doesnt interest me lol....but going into the season I know from jump theres no chance..in the NFL..different teams raise up year after year and I know that any given year..a team has a chance and a salary cap keeps an even playing field

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I think that's a legitimate argument...one strength the NFL, and to a lesser extent the NBA and NHL, have right now is that basically every team has a legitimate chance of making it to the playoffs and the championship. Unless you're a totally bottom of the barrel NFL team, it's realistic that you could go to the playoffs this season. The other nice thing is that a team can suck one year, but recouperate quickly and become a playoff contender by the next season. In MLB, it takes years to rebuild a team, sometimes. That can be incredibly frustrating as a fan.

[sfaJack 0]

People always talk about the competitive imbalance of MLB. Since 1995, the first year of the wild card, here are some facts:

 

- Only 8 out of 30 MLB teams make the playoffs every year, which makes it a more exclusive club than the 12 that make the NFL playoffs or the 16 that make it in the NBA/NHL.

 

- 22 different teams have made the playoffs at least once

 

- 18 different teams have won at least one playoff series

 

- 13 different teams have played in at least one World Series, out of a possible 22.

 

- 7 different champions, including 6 of the last 6 years.

 

And honestly, did anyone expect the White Sox to win the Series last year? The Marlins in '03, Angels in '02, and Dbacks in '01? Hell, even the Red Sox in '04? To say baseball is predictable and the "same old teams every year" is a big ignorant.

[The Czech Republic 0]

In MLB, it takes years to rebuild a team, sometimes. That can be incredibly frustrating as a fan.

No, I'll tell you what's frustrating. Going 13-3 in 2001 and 4-12 the very next year. It's good that every team has a chance, but when teams bounce back and forth from the Super Bowl to 4th in the division, it just feels like God draws this year's good teams out of a hat.

 

but going into the season I know from jump theres no chance..in the NFL..different teams raise up year after year and I know that any given year..a team has a chance and a salary cap keeps an even playing field

You know that's not true. Back here, April 2003, some "Mik at Cornell" boldly stated that his Florida Marlins, of all teams, were somehow going to win the World Series. Everyone on this board ripped him to shreds for such a bold statement that couldn't possibly be true. I mean, these guys were in the cellar year after year after year since the fire sale. Look what happened. The Cubs were pennant favorites in '04 and they couldn't even finish second in the Central. Anything can happen in baseball, and without the divine intervention of THE COMPETITIVE-BALANCING SALARY CAP!!!, it's a lot more genuine.

[The Man in Blak 0]

A salary cap isn't going to save teams from chronic mismanagement. The Tigers and the Royals have been two of the worst teams over the last ten years, and they've remained consistently terrible because their draft picks over that time period have been historically bad. There is no cheaper talent for an organization than talent that is home grown through their own system; even if they were higher payroll teams, both of those teams would have had to nail their free agent signings to make up for the gap in talent.

[Mik 0]

The current ESPN.com poll question (3/2 - 11:16 PM EST) is "What is your favorite sport?"

 

NFL is winning every state and overall is at 57%. Baseball is easily in second with around 27% and the NBA is down around 10%.

 

Exactly what I figured.

[naiwf 0]

But NASCAR fans don't have internet access, since they're all rednecks [/sarcasm]

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

The current ESPN.com poll question (3/2 - 11:16 PM EST) is "What is your favorite sport?"

 

NFL is winning every state and overall is at 57%. Baseball is easily in second with around 27% and the NBA is down around 10%.

 

Exactly what I figured.

Talk about good timing. Baseball seriously challenges football in the northeast and is a solid #2 everywhere else.

[naiwf 0]

I don't think it's all that useful because this poll doesn't take into account someone like me who watches all of the major sports but has a distinct level of interest. All I can do is list "NFL" as # 1. Most baseball fans like baseball far and away more than all of the other sports, but I'd be curious to know how many of the 70-75% that don't list it as their absolute favorite follow it on a regular basis. It's much easier to watch an entire NFL or NASCAR season as opposed to the patience testing NBA, NHL and MLB seasons even if you prefer some other sport, but then again this wasn't what the poll was intended to gauge.

[dh86 0]

In MLB, it takes years to rebuild a team, sometimes. That can be incredibly frustrating as a fan.

No, I'll tell you what's frustrating. Going 13-3 in 2001 and 4-12 the very next year. It's good that every team has a chance, but when teams bounce back and forth from the Super Bowl to 4th in the division, it just feels like God draws this year's good teams out of a hat.

 

but going into the season I know from jump theres no chance..in the NFL..different teams raise up year after year and I know that any given year..a team has a chance and a salary cap keeps an even playing field

You know that's not true. Back here, April 2003, some "Mik at Cornell" boldly stated that his Florida Marlins, of all teams, were somehow going to win the World Series. Everyone on this board ripped him to shreds for such a bold statement that couldn't possibly be true. I mean, these guys were in the cellar year after year after year since the fire sale. Look what happened. The Cubs were pennant favorites in '04 and they couldn't even finish second in the Central. Anything can happen in baseball, and without the divine intervention of THE COMPETITIVE-BALANCING SALARY CAP!!!, it's a lot more genuine.

 

of course there are exceptions to the rule in baseball...but teams like the Yankees,Mets and Cubs are able to try to spend their way out of fuckups..if the Devil Rays or Brewers fuck up,..they are stuck in neutral..I just want to see everyone on the same spending playing field and front offices move around that...it is more entertaining to me..theres a big reason why the NFL is trying to get the CBA done NOW you know

[The Czech Republic 0]

No, you're still wrong. If you want to level the playing field in baseball, have the leagues run all thirty front offices at once, because that's the only way you'll level the playing field. It's not "the more you spend, the more you win" like some people think. The Yankees weren't even the top payroll in the league when they had the last dynasty. I think LA and Baltimore were the top two at the time, and they were shit.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Baseball is more balanced now than it ever was. It's a historical trend. There are some teams that consistantly lose, but there have always been losing teams, and you don't see outright pathetic teams like you used to. You'll never see a team lose 100 games for five consecutive years. Jayson Stark noted in his column that baseball has had more variety in it's championship series than football has the last five years.

 

The difference in baseball, and in all sports, is not a salary cap. It is the amateur draft. The advent of the draft in 1965 ended the Yankee dynasty, as it meant the Yankees could no longer outbid other teams for the top amateur talent. Free agency has given some advantage to the big clubs, but it is muted because it also allows bad clubs to patch black holes in their lineups. Plus, most good players have their best seasons before free agency.

[The Czech Republic 0]

no...but you see...if everyone can spend the sames....then it's fair for every1...because then the roylas can compete with the yankees and have stars to...

[dh86 0]

Baseball is more balanced now than it ever was. It's a historical trend. There are some teams that consistantly lose, but there have always been losing teams, and you don't see outright pathetic teams like you used to. You'll never see a team lose 100 games for five consecutive years. Jayson Stark noted in his column that baseball has had more variety in it's championship series than football has the last five years.

 

The difference in baseball, and in all sports, is not a salary cap. It is the amateur draft. The advent of the draft in 1965 ended the Yankee dynasty, as it meant the Yankees could no longer outbid other teams for the top amateur talent. Free agency has given some advantage to the big clubs, but it is muted because it also allows bad clubs to patch black holes in their lineups. Plus, most good players have their best seasons before free agency.

 

sure free agency allows for more competition but...say Carl Pavano for example..Yankees signed him for $40 million and he flopped his 1st year..now he probably wont even make their rotation...is he handicapping their team? NO..is he stopping them from throwing more money to cover that fuck up? NO...say Pavano signed with the Tigers...Tigers wouldnt have been able to go get Randy Johnson that same offseason and they would have been stuck with Pavano near the top of the rotation for years...its just like Giambi...he wasnt the MVP that they expected..they go get ARod,Matsui,Sheffield,Damon...same thing....and the draft isnt much of a factor in competitive balance..just look at where Giambi,Tejada,Hudson,Mulder,Isringhausen,etc are today or ask Kansas City where Johnny Damon and Carlos Beltran went or the former Expos what happened to Vlad,Pedro,etc

[iggymcfly 0]

Somebody here was just saying than everyone likes football, but MLB is jst a small regional base so while 20% of the country lists it as their "favorite sport", the rest of the country doesn't give a shit whereas everyone loves the NFL. Well, I say that's bullshit. Here's my favorite sports in order.

 

1. NCAA football

2. NCAA basketball

3. MLB

4. NHL

5. NBA

6. NFL

 

The fact is that the NFL's just slow and plodding as hell and if you're not into fantasy football and don't have a good local team, it's almost impossible to get into it. Honestly, on pure aesthetic value, the NFL is about as boring of a league as there is.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

sure free agency allows for more competition but...say Carl Pavano for example..Yankees signed him for $40 million and he flopped his 1st year..now he probably wont even make their rotation...is he handicapping their team? NO..is he stopping them from throwing more money to cover that fuck up? NO...say Pavano signed with the Tigers...Tigers wouldnt have been able to go get Randy Johnson that same offseason and they would have been stuck with Pavano near the top of the rotation for years...its just like Giambi...he wasnt the MVP that they expected..they go get ARod,Matsui,Sheffield,Damon...same thing....and the draft isnt much of a factor in competitive balance..just look at where Giambi,Tejada,Hudson,Mulder,Isringhausen,etc are today or ask Kansas City where Johnny Damon and Carlos Beltran went or the former Expos what happened to Vlad,Pedro,etc

 

Oh sure free agency is advantagous towards the big spenders. I'm just saying it is not as big a factor as everyone assumes. Teams don't get to keep their drafted players, but they get six years of their careers. Oakland turned their players into five consecutive 90 win seasons. A good team, the Braves most notably, are continuously cycling fresh minor league talent.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Small market teams have to draft well, and or make good trades in order to remain competive.

 

Look at the A's. They took compensation picks and ended up with the likes of Huston Street, Nick Swisher, and Joe Blanton.

 

The big three of Hudson, Mulder, and Zito were draft picks for Oakland in '97, '98 and '99. Two of those pitchers left but in return the A's received Juan Cruz, Dan Meyer, Danny Haren, and Daric Barton. Barton by all accounts one of the best hitting prospects in the game.

[Precious Roy 0]

I haven't read all of this thread, but I've got the feeling in recent years that baseball has rebounded in a major way since the mid 90's. A lot of people declared baseball dead and buried...but it feels like now (and I may not have the proper perspective since I'm in the midst of the hottest Yankees/Sox period ever) that more people care about the sport than they did 10-15 years ago.

 

Obviously the steroid fueled HR chases had a lot to do with bringing them back from the strike, but even with all the steroid controversy now it doesn't even feel like it's been a negative, it actually feels like it's drawn more interest because people now feel like with that threat over player's heads that they're seeing a more pure game, they have this assumption that the game is pure again, like it's some sort of vindication of modern man when guys are all jacked up and killing the ball. Maybe I'm wrong, but it feels like baseball is hotter than it's been in a long time.

 

I also think that the growth internationally has brought a lot of interest as well. Ichiro, Matsui, all the South American guys....it's something new to people, these guys are interesting characters, they draw in new fans, it gives the game a different feel.

[dh86 0]

Small market teams have to draft well, and or make good trades in order to remain competive.

 

Look at the A's. They took compensation picks and ended up with the likes of Huston Street, Nick Swisher, and Joe Blanton.

 

The big three of Hudson, Mulder, and Zito were draft picks for Oakland in '97, '98 and '99. Two of those pitchers left but in return the A's received Juan Cruz, Dan Meyer, Danny Haren, and Daric Barton. Barton by all accounts one of the best hitting prospects in the game.

 

out of the prospects you named..how many gonna be in Oakland by the turn of the decade?...another advantage is teams like the Yankees keep all of their good prospects that teams like Milwaukee would have to trade

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Haren's under contract until 2009 with a team option for 2010. Barton's not free agent eligible until 2012 at the earliest. Juan Cruz and Dan Meyer probably aren't good enough to star on an A's championship team. And of course, by the time 2010 comes around the best players will be different.

[Bored 0]

And if this past offseason is a sign of things to come, the A's new ownership isn't going to be a heavy handed when it comes to the payroll. People forget that 15 years ago the A's had the highest payroll in baseball but that's because they had an ownership group, the Haas Family, who was willing to spend money. Playing one of the big three markets helps but at the end of the day it's all about how much the ownership wants to spend.

 

Of course after this season when Barry Zito leaves through free agency to sign with the Yankees or Mets everyone will be screaming that it shows that they can't stay competitive rather than he isn't worth the $12-14 million/year he'll get.

[Vern Gagne 0]

What kind of payroll are the A's looking to have?

[Steve J. Rogers 0]

Sad part about this, they guy still hasn't answered any of my points in the thread on that board. Except my point about Philly being an overated sports town because they talk Eagles non-stop, even if there hasn't been Eagle news in months. Basically the guy said that THAT makes Philly a great sports town because it "doesn't kiss up to the allmighty MLB"

 

 

Everyone here is right, just an anti-MLB troll. I mean I even asked him to defend the fact that ESPN Radio makes a national issue over Alex Rodriguez being so hated, yet ignoring Jeff Gordon, Roger Federer or even Triple H who are in the same boat of being at the top of their sports (and so-called in Triple H's case) yet either universally loved or universally hated (mostly hated) by both the fan base and their peers. And if baseball was treated so shabbily by the public shouldn't the "playa hating" towards ARod be a complete non story and not covered at all?

[NoCalMike 0]

Of course after this season when Barry Zito leaves through free agency to sign with the Yankees or Mets everyone will be screaming that it shows that they can't stay competitive rather than he isn't worth the $12-14 million/year he'll get.

 

So True.