Is baseball really a joke nationally?

[bob_barron 0]

Yea, ESPN really needs to start running stories on Triple H.

[Red Baron 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.

 

 

But a large % of fans out there realize that there team aren't contendors. Not World Series Winners, not Playoff bound, but not even threats to be taken seriously. Do you really think that the fans of the Royals, Tigers, D-Backs, Reds, Brewers and all of those laden shitty teams honestly care about winning the World Series? No. They probably go to the game because it is cheap, or they want to see certain players. Maybe Baseball should just cut 1/3 of the teams out there and maybe it would become more competitive and will get more attention.

[bob_barron 0]

You can say that about almost any sport.

[Red Baron 0]

But its all true with baseball though. In hockey and basketball theres at least progression throughout the a few seasons with the team, that get into the playoffs. Football is just a parity of itself as almost anyone can get into the playoffs (except Arizona and Cleveland). Baseball you can allready predict the playoffs for the next season and be at least 50% correct.

[Mik 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.

 

 

But a large % of fans out there realize that there team aren't contendors. Not World Series Winners, not Playoff bound, but not even threats to be taken seriously. Do you really think that the fans of the Royals, Tigers, D-Backs, Reds, Brewers and all of those laden shitty teams honestly care about winning the World Series? No. They probably go to the game because it is cheap, or they want to see certain players. Maybe Baseball should just cut 1/3 of the teams out there and maybe it would become more competitive and will get more attention.

 

D-Backs and Brewers fans probably will in a few years or two. Especially D-Backs.

 

They are about to have a legendary lineup, as they have a ton of SUPER high end prospects that are all essentially big league ready. (Conor Jackson, Carlos Quentin, Stephen Drew, JUSTIN UPTON)

 

They would just need to sign an ace through free agency and I could honestly see them winning the 2007 or 2008 World Series.

 

Same with the Brewers (although they would need to get a bit more lucky).

[Red Baron 0]

You can talk prospects all you want, but the fact is no one will buy into the team with prospects. Like I stated earlier, you can predict the playoffs for 2006 and amazingly you will get at least 50% right.

[The Czech Republic 0]

the Yankees keep all of their good prospects

No, they really don't. At all.

[naiwf 0]

the Yankees keep all of their good prospects

No, they really don't. At all.

 

Aside from maybe Ted Lilly who is nothing more than a servicable back of the rotation guy, what "big time" Yankee prospect was sent off somewhere and became a stud in the last 10 years? They overhype their farmhands, trade them off and then just go out and buy legit prospects/all-star type players from other teams.

[bob_barron 0]

But its all true with baseball though. In hockey and basketball theres at least progression throughout the a few seasons with the team, that get into the playoffs. Football is just a parity of itself as almost anyone can get into the playoffs (except Arizona and Cleveland). Baseball you can allready predict the playoffs for the next season and be at least 50% correct.

 

You can do that for most sports too, except maybe football.

 

I don't think anyone expected an Astros v. White Sox World Series.

[Steve J. Rogers 0]

Yea, ESPN really needs to start running stories on Triple H.

 

I threw him in as a joke, to see if people on that board would go "Who the FUCK is Triple H? And Who the Fuck cares?"

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I'm not tremendously concerned about MLB's system. First off, 25 of the 30 MLB clubs do not compete with the Red Sox and Yankees for playoff spots. Some clubs are perennial losers, but if they can't beat Central division clubs, teams with similar economic resources, what more can you do for them? There's only so far you can go to subsudize idiocy.

 

Only a portion of the NFL's parity is due to the salary cap. There are also unguaranteed contracts that allow teams to cut dead weight every year. In addition, the 16 game schedule creates parity simply due to random chance. Two years ago, the KC Royals kicked off a season 13-3. In the NFL, that's a division title.

 

Let me quote quick from a recent Jayson Stark blog...

 

USELESS PARITY INFO

 

We wouldn't be fulfilling our professional responsibilities if we didn't use Super Bowl week to remind you that you should feel free to laugh out loud any time you hear some football addict blab about how much more parity there is in the NFL than MLB.

 

In baseball, we've now had a different champion six seasons in a row.

 

So how many times in history -- recent or ancient -- has the NFL produced a different champ six years in a row? That would be once (1968-73). We bet Paul Tagliabue might forget to mention that in his State of the NFL address.

 

MORE USELESS PARITY INFO

 

We don't want to hear any of you skeptics complain that that previous note is just some meaningless statistical fluke, either. For proof, let's go to the final fours in each sport.

 

How many different franchises have reached baseball's final four (the LCS) over the last five years? How about 13 of 30 (or 43 percent).

 

OK, so obviously, more football teams have made it to the NFL's final four (the conference championships) over the last five years, right? Oops. That would be dead wrong. It's 12 of 32 (or 37.5 percent).

 

And there are many other ways to illustrate this point. But I wouldn't want to pile on. That would be 15 yards.

 

To close, let me say that I think about 20 of the 30 teams in MLB have a reasonable shot at a postseason berth. That's not counting dark horses like the Pittsburgh Pirates who could sneak in if their young pitchers develop quicker than expected. That's not bad at all.

[Guest]

Which 10 don't have a chance? Colorado, Arizona, Pittsburgh, Washington, Florida, Tampa, Baltimore, Detroit, KC, Seattle?

 

Look at the markets of most of those teams. They aren't all small market teams. If management's not willing to spend money, that's their issue. With most of these teams above, when they do spend money, they fuck up and sign bad players.

[MrRant 0]

Only a portion of the NFL's parity is due to the salary cap. There are also unguaranteed contracts that allow teams to cut dead weight every year. In addition, the 16 game schedule creates parity simply due to random chance. Two years ago, the KC Royals kicked off a season 13-3. In the NFL, that's a division title.

 

And that is exactly why the NFL is of greater competitiveness IMO. If people aren't performing up to where you want them to, you can cut them after their guaranteed portion of their contract is over and then either draft or sign someone to replace him.

 

In MLB and the NBA you end up with Allan Houston contracts in which everything is guaranteed and then you have to pray to god that someone is either willing to take him and pay that amount, trade him and pay his salary, or get him to restructure then trade. I'm in favor of signing bonuses being guaranteed and perhaps the first 3 years guaranteded but I don't like seeing 5-7 year death sentences if someone drastically declines or gets hurt (Allan Houston).

 

Edit: And I like baseball and go to about 10 games a year (hard to go when working all the time) and look forward to watching the M's improve, but I'm not confident with how they will do since they are relying on prospects and didn't really upgrade the pitching very much in my opinion but I hope it works out.

[randomguy 0]

For all the talk of NFL competitiveness it doesn't look all that competitive to me. Any team can win? How about those Cardinals? Texans? Lions?

 

Remember when baseball was thinking of downsizing and eliminating the Twins entirely? Then they made the playoffs a couple years in a row.

 

The interesting story here is really basketball. Baseball is popular and football is popular, while basketball is dropping like a rock, mostly because the overall style of play is just garbage. I don't know anybody who cares about basketball at all, even a little bit. (NBA basketball that is)

[naiwf 0]

For all the talk of NFL competitiveness it doesn't look all that competitive to me. Any team can win? How about those Cardinals? Texans? Lions?

 

Remember when baseball was thinking of downsizing and eliminating the Twins entirely? Then they made the playoffs a couple years in a row.

 

The interesting story here is really basketball. Baseball is popular and football is popular, while basketball is dropping like a rock, mostly because the overall style of play is just garbage. I don't know anybody who cares about basketball at all, even a little bit. (NBA basketball that is)

 

Those teams suffer from bad management/drafting. They have the ability to compete though because they aren't competing against a bunch of teams with 10 times the resources and 5 times the payroll. Bidwell doesn't spend money (notice how the LA Clippers have done better when they actually put some money back into the team), the Texans are a newer franchise who got burned by guys like Carr not panning out, and the Lions keep drafting WRs in the 1st round without a franchise QB. It's hard to win in any sport with stupidity coming down from on high, but a team like the Jets can be a Super Bowl contender one year and end up in the outhouse the following one without having 10-15 years of darkness all but guaranteed because of the system. A few good drafts and a FA pick up of a cap casualty/caretaker QB like a Kerry Collins type could get them right back into the playoffs.

 

On the other hand, a team like the Florida Marlins for example can make a run to the title and then have to dismantle the team completely. The Royals will never be able to spend enough money to lure big name free agents and the Yankees never have to have a draft pick pan out because they just buy the best guys that are available by throwing more money at them. Yes, it's fun to see the Yankees fail, but ask yourself this question. . . are they a WS favorite every year because they have the best management, or are they a WS favorite because they can and will outspend everyone every year? Even if they don't win it all you can pencil them in for 90 wins and a playoff spot because they have a virtual all star team and will add pieces midseason when some small market team sells off their best player for a prospect and some cash because they have no hope of signing him when free agency comes.

 

The NBA product sucks because 90% of the guys entering the league now have no fundamentals and get by solely on athletic ability. For all intents and purposes the NBA is now the Rucker League with better athletes and a small portion of guys in the league solely because they can shoot, and another small group of 6'10+ stiffs who stick around because they're 6'10 or taller. The few teams who don't play that style (Spurs and Pistons) are deemed "boring" by the modern fan, while the other superstar first teams don't appeal to old school fans.

[Red Baron 0]

I love watching the Pistons, Spurs, Suns and Raptors personally. All of them are exciting in their own way.

[TheDevilAndGodAreRagingInsideMe 0]

The Royals can spend anything they want. Their owner, correct me if I'm wrong, is the head of Wal-Mart. They just choose not to.

[Guest]

That's exactly what I said. And when teams like the Royals do spend money, they fuck up.

[naiwf 0]

I didn't say they couldn't spend money, I said they couldn't spend ENOUGH money to get the big name free agents. What huge star is going to go to Kansas City to play baseball for a sub .500 team when he can get 10-15 million per from the Yankees/Mets, Dodgers/Angels or Red Sox? The A-Rod $252 million deal turned out to be the worst big time signing ever, and I think that pretty much scared off the mid to small market teams from going way above market value to get/keep someone. Back to the Royals, Beltran left for a reason, as did Damon and unless KC develops some sort of unbelievable nightlife or somehow lucks into 10-20 5 tool prospects at once, I don't see their chances of being contenders changing.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

On the other hand, a team like the Florida Marlins for example can make a run to the title and then have to dismantle the team completely. The Royals will never be able to spend enough money to lure big name free agents and the Yankees never have to have a draft pick pan out because they just buy the best guys that are available by throwing more money at them. Yes, it's fun to see the Yankees fail, but ask yourself this question. . . are they a WS favorite every year because they have the best management, or are they a WS favorite because they can and will outspend everyone every year? Even if they don't win it all you can pencil them in for 90 wins and a playoff spot because they have a virtual all star team and will add pieces midseason when some small market team sells off their best player for a prospect and some cash because they have no hope of signing him when free agency comes.

Both. The Yankees didn't get their money handed to them on a silver platter. They were a pathetic organization until ten years ago when their farm system actually produced something. They then learned to take their product and market it properly. And you know what? They still can't win the World Series spending $200 Million a season.

 

The NBA product sucks because 90% of the guys entering the league now have no fundamentals and get by solely on athletic ability. For all intents and purposes the NBA is now the Rucker League with better athletes and a small portion of guys in the league solely because they can shoot, and another small group of 6'10+ stiffs who stick around because they're 6'10 or taller. The few teams who don't play that style (Spurs and Pistons) are deemed "boring" by the modern fan, while the other superstar first teams don't appeal to old school fans.

 

Bullshit. NBA players have fundamentals. Just because their style of basketball isn't aestetically pleasing does not mean they can't play.

 

I didn't say they couldn't spend money, I said they couldn't spend ENOUGH money to get the big name free agents. What huge star is going to go to Kansas City to play baseball for a sub .500 team when he can get 10-15 million per from the Yankees/Mets, Dodgers/Angels or Red Sox? The A-Rod $252 million deal turned out to be the worst big time signing ever, and I think that pretty much scared off the mid to small market teams from going way above market value to get/keep someone. Back to the Royals, Beltran left for a reason, as did Damon and unless KC develops some sort of unbelievable nightlife or somehow lucks into 10-20 5 tool prospects at once, I don't see their chances of being contenders changing.

 

The A-Rod contract was not the worst signing ever. It got the Rangers, and then the Yankees, the best player in the American League, and a HOF caliber player. What killed the Rangers was spending $65 Million on Chan Ho Park. As for the Royals, they let Damon go, and then let Beltran go. They brought up David DeJesus. Problem solved. As for the rest of the Royals, if they can't beat Detroit or Minnesota, what else do you want to do? The Royals were one of the best teams in the American League for 10 years. That happened after free agency started. What's changed that makes it that they can't compete? They have idiot management.

 

Any team can contend, given the resources from their farm system. You develop a player and you retain his rights for 6-7 years. When he reaches free agency, he's about 30 and reaching the decline stage of his career. That's why free agency is not the end all factor that people perceive. Because most free agents have seen their best days. In addition, teams that buy free agents lose draft picks. The Athletics have made a habit of picking up 2-4 draft picks a season thanks to free agency.

 

Most of this was debunked 5 years ago. Why do people hold on to the big market notion?

[naiwf 0]

Most of this was debunked 5 years ago. Why do people hold on to the big market notion?

 

When the Montreal Expos became a farm club for most teams in the mid '90s to raid for their talent it exposed the huge problem in baseball. Something like that will never happen in any of the other major sports, but baseball continues to allow it to occur.

 

How can you justify outpricing the market by $63 million dollars as a good signing because you got the best player in the league? They paid over $100 million in salary and a buyout for 3 lousy seasons of use for a guy who didn't get them more than 73 wins in any year while he was there. I don't know about you but that sounds like a worse deal to me than a $65 million/5 yr deal for Park even though that was probably one of the top 10 worse MLB contracts ever as well.

 

This is the last post I'm going to make in this thread because quite honestly talking about baseball and its antiquated system of 10 haves and 20 have nots isn't worth this much effort.

[Guest Princess Leena]

My point earlier is that this is a pointless argument on both sides.

 

You don't like that some crappy radio station only talks about baseball? You're online. There's a zillion radio shows on here that talk about every sport imaginable.

 

Why do people classify things as "niche" sports? In a rare case where I agree with Wilbon... what do ratings matter? What does it matter if a sport is popular? Watch what you want. Practically everyone nowadays will laugh at sports like tennis, soccer... for no other reason than it's not popular where they live. That's just ignorant, and reason #123423 why American sports fans are goddamn dullards that are impossible to have sporting conversations with.

[dh86 0]

the Yankees keep all of their good prospects

No, they really don't. At all.

 

their only great prospect that left NY during their prime was Alfonso Soriano in the A rod trade

[The Czech Republic 0]

When the Montreal Expos became a farm club for most teams in the mid '90s to raid for their talent it exposed the huge problem in baseball. Something like that will never happen in any of the other major sports, but baseball continues to allow it to occur.

Like that role has never been filled before? Kansas City A's? wasn't really a baseball problem so much as a Jeff Loria problem. It's always gonna happen, and it comes down to management. Montreal's was horrible then, just like Florida's is now.

 

This is the last post I'm going to make in this thread because quite honestly talking about baseball and its antiquated system of 10 haves and 20 have nots isn't worth this much effort.

Except it's been proven that the system is fine, but okay.

[BruiserKC 0]

All sports are regionalized to an extent and it depends on what's important or at the higher levels. Example, here in Iowa...no major league sports so the majority of sports talk is Iowa, Iowa State, and occasional mix of Northern Iowa. In Chicago where they have all the pro sports there will be the talk of Bears, Cubs, and White Sox before Notre Dame or Northwestern get any mention.

 

As for baseball, football has been the number one sport for about the last 40 years...baseball was THE THING in sports for about 100 years before then. Baseball still has deep roots in our history...deeper than football.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I'd say football was #2 until the AFL merger in '70 but that's me

[Guest hasbeen]

Here is the starter from a NYC sports radio message board:

 

College Football. Uh, the closest you'll get to College Football in NYC is either DII with Iona (who just unveiled a brand new facilitiy), Hofstra (who is losing the Jets in a completely unreported story by the way), ect. Rutgers and UCONN count but are too far away program wise to really give the NYC Metro Area a boost into major College Football. So the talk gets dominated by all the ND, Michigan, BC, Ohio State, Penn State, ect alumni/fans that call up and thats not enough to really get fired up except from September through the Bowl Season. Okay you might get the Mel Kiper wannabes saying a kid they saw on the Dish play in a few games for Washington might be a good pickup during the draft period (right now) but that period ends roughly around April. I mean no one around here cares that much about what Florida is doing in their Spring and Summer practices.

 

 

 

The programs mentioned at the start are 1-AA, not Division II (65 scholarships vs 35 is the difference) and there's a lot better competition in 1-AA than you might think. Kurt Warner, Terrell Owens, many more came from 1-AA programs. Rutgers is not too far away from being an annual top 25 team, especially if the coach continues to recruit New Jersey well. ESPN and the like will pile on the attention if they get over that hump, since they're in the NY area, and they'll just continue to grow. UConn will too. Look at Big East basketball, how it was pushed being in the Northeast. And yes, baseball has fallen badly. Just 10-15 years ago I could have told you every starting player on every team, that's even while traveling much of the time, and I haven't watched a complete world series game in at least five years. Most of the people I know are the same way. Too much turnover in rosters is bad for the game. The NFL realized that.

[C Dubya 04 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?

 

I think you're way off base calling Philly not a good sports town. People follow the Phillies as close as anything. Just because the Eagles are followed in their offseason as well doesn't mean anything. Just that people in Philly really care about football.

[The Czech Republic 0]

baseball has fallen badly. Just 10-15 years ago I could have told you every starting player on every team, that's even while traveling much of the time, and I haven't watched a complete world series game in at least five years. Most of the people I know are the same way. Too much turnover in rosters is bad for the game. The NFL realized that.

They must've realized that, liked it, and run with it, because I can't keep keep the NFL rosters straight from year to year. I doubt many casual observers of the league can either. Running backs are short-lived, offensive linemen are interchangable, basically if you can remember your quarterback and your Cocky Young Black Guys, you're in good shape, I suppose. Baseball fell after the strike, but if you can't see that it's really on the rise, you're just another Parity Drone worshipping at the Church Of The Salary Cap.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

It's laughable to suggest that the NFL has less roster turnover than MLB. Quite honestly, roster turnover has not increased significantly in the past thirty years.