Now if I told you that, you'd just steal em all away from me......

Alright maybe I'll tell you, but you gotta promise not share it with Leon.......then we're both screwed......and not in that sense :)

Leon is cool, he's a "Bro's Before Ho's" kinda of guy at least that's what his lower back tattoo says....

Good to know.....just don't share what his lower waist tattoo says, lol, we'll leave that to our imagination............on second thought not sure if imagining is a good idea.....

I picked the wrong day to quit sniffin glue with my zzuryp

For me personally, the reason baseball attendance is down is because it is so effing expensive to go to a game, and it has turned into quite the "to do".

My Dad and I used to go see the Mets every time they came to play the Dodgers, and occasionally the Angels and Padres, but I am older now, and I have to pay my own way. If I want to drink some very crappy beer, it will cost $11 for a taste. More importantly, the atmosphere can be vile at times. I would not want to take my niece to a game, for example. People are screaming obscenities and even getting into absurd and pointless fighting etc. etc. etc. ... it is not all that "warm and fuzzy" anymore.

My Dad and I had gone to almost every game since the Piazza, Fonzie, Leiter days, so maybe since 2000 or so, for years and years and years ... then SNY came around in 2006 or so, and now we can watch the Mets anytime we want, and we can sit in the comfort of our own homes, and listen to Gary Cohen, Ron Darling, and Keith Hernandez. It has been glorious (not the team, the broadcast).

Thats what it is. Television broadcasts have gotten so good, and it is too damn expensive to have a day at the ballpark anymore !!! We still love the game and our favorite teams just as much ... I think ? Sign of the times, maybe ?

Derek

An interesting discussion, however, I think that it starts out with a false premise, that baseball has declined in popularity. While more people say that football is their favorite sport, that does not mean that fewer people like baseball. Since the seasons do not overlap too much, one rarely has to make a choice between sports. In a Gallup poll from 1938-39, 40% of American adults identified themselves as baseball fans. In 2006, that number was 49%. Let's say that considering margin of error and that it is now 2014,the numbers are roughly similar. 40% of American Adults consider themselves baseball fans. Comparing the population in 1939, about 131 million to the current population 317 million, it is apparent that there are at least twice as many baseball fans today as in the days when the sport was the American Pastime.

I'm not sure if I think baseball is losing popularity either. If you look at the top ten largest sports contracts in history, 9 out of the top 10 are current baseball players (10 is a tie between Mayweather and Mark Teixiera). That money is generated and driven by fan revenue.

Soccer sucks. I can't stand watching it and am going to be so pissed if my son goes that route.

Soccer is a nice sport but I have trouble understanding why some people think it will begin to occupy a major space in America. The same reasons people trot out to say baseball is dying are the same obstacles someone has to overcome to play soccer. Both sports have a similar amount of players on the field at one time. Both sports require a large amount of space and equipment.

But why is it that 9 players is too many to field a baseball team and purchasing equipment and needing an outdoor space are detriments when all of these requirements apply to soccer too. As well as football, which is even more specialized than baseball.

Apart from hockey Baseball and basketball for the most part require the most specialized equipment to play, hard to play basketball without nets and a ball and hard to play baseball without gloves, ball and a bat. In order to play football or soccer on the other hand you really only need a patch of dirt and the ball for each sport. My entire youth was pretty much playing soccer in anywhere from 1 on 1 to 11 on 11, as long as you have roughly equal numbers on each side those two sports really only require a ball and possibly a little ingenuity.

Awwseeesssome! Thanks for that!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:eek:

Growing up I thought that soccer was a stupid game. When I got to college my friends had a team and invited me to play. I was surprised by how much fun it is. The best thing about the game is that you can play it throughout your life, unlike baseball.

Does anyone play in any baseball leagues? (obviously not HS or college)

let me help out some collectors.....
 

and take any unwanted, garbage, bad condition, no good T206 scrap off your hands......:D:):D

Collecting
 

When I was toiling through grade school and later high school I knew very few others who collected. Today I know people who collect but in my city of 600,000 I know about a dozen. There are more I am sure who simply go the ebay route.

At the time I started collecting it was because I was a baseball fan. As the years moved on I became less of a fan of the sport and a fan of the history. I quit collecting for 10 years thanks to what Dave mentioned (2x) but always knew I would get back in when I could. I got back into collecting because its a great pastime and I enjoy the history.

I follow baseball now for a couple of reasons but for a new "fad" fantasy baseball.

As far as the collecting goes. To Johns point its the hunt for the non-common card that attracts me. I've completed the set less the big three once and now enjoy the hunt for my 42's. After that is complete, i'll have to come up with another angle but it is addicting and 90% of the people in the hobby are good to deal with.


As the Food Lion(NC grocery store chain) commercial says, "Thats just my 2 cents"

I can't wait until the market plummets for baseball cards. I'm going to buy a bunch of red Hindus, Drums, Lenox's and Broadleafs. I'm talking a lot of them (because they'll be so cheap, you know). I'll even pick up a Ty Cobb back for a $100 or so. I'll crack them out of their cases and I'll get naked & roll around in them. Of course, it'll be about 40 years from now and I'll be in my 80s, so that will be fun. I'm sure a few Wagners will get stuck in my folds and cracks. But, who cares...

Adam Bomb.....
 

collectors like you make this hobby enjoyable....you have put great cards in my collection, but I have to say your a true friend:)

there are a few collectors, to me, have truly made this a great hobby to me.....and they know who they are....AB- your at the top o' the list my friend:)

That sounds like a party......

Basketball has never been the #1 sport in America. At its highest, it's gotten to #3. Baseball and football have always outpaced it in popularity, ratings, attendance, everything.

Basketball has never and will never appeal to me. I have nothing in common with that sport. For me it's baseball, football and hockey........I do enjoy F1 as well :cool:

Last Saturday night I attended a fundraiser for a local high school/American Legion program. The speakers included three former major leaguers and there were four college coaches in attendance.

It was attended by 250 folks on a cold, cold night in Arkansas. I think baseball is alive and well. Parents are pulling the kids away from football because of the injury publicity and soccer is not in our DNA.

The NFL is not itself any favors with its' own network where the English language is not used well by former or current players and sportsmanship seems to be unimportant!

Last Thursday night I attended a sold-out banquet of 600+ here in Nashville with an ex-major leaguer as speaker, and nine other ex-major league players and four D1 college coaches in attendance, too.

Today we had a ground-breaking ceremony for a new ballpark for the AAA Nashville Sounds with a major league GM, the president of the minor leagues, and two current major league players attending. Even in 20-degree weather, the crowd exceeded all expectations.

In Music City, baseball is indeed alive and well...

What does Keith O think?

http://deadspin.com/keith-olbermann-...ore-1452010334

Completely agree with everything you have said. The hobby is being driven by the kids of the 50s - 90s right now and when we are all gone this hobby is gonna nose dive and that is why I collect what I like regardless of price. Anyone who doesn't see that inevitable shrinking numbers of collectors will drive prices down is kidding themselves. I think the market for comic books however which I have no interest in whatsoever will remain strong because that is what kids are into now. Superhereoes. SMH

Well, the thing is, there are many collectors of these cards who do not spend anywhere near $10,000.00 on a card. Sure, some collectors have deep pockets and buy what they like regardless of the price- I would too if I could afford to. But, you don't have to be a millionaire to collect these cards. There are also collectors with big money buying cards, people who like their privacy, and don't post on the internet. I only bring that up because there are more collectors of these cards than you see here on Net54 (although I'm sure they read Net54 :D).

I do not think the popularity in baseball is falling at an alarming rate, and I do not think the hobby will drop in 40 years........these cards have to go somewhere! Plus, truth is, there's a ton of people who have never heard of pre-war cards....I used to be one of them! There are a ton of people who, if asked about vintage baseball cards, will tell you about cards they had as a kid from the 50's and 60's......clueless about pre-war cards.

Anyhow, I think people will collect these cards, as long as the planet survives.........

Sincerely, Clayton

Maybe then I can afford a T210 JJ!

When you are 15 not too many kids will collect what their father does .

When you are 25 you are too busy to collect what your Father does .

When you are 35 you might collect what your Father does if you wife lets you .

At 45 you just do it and enjoy it .

I sure hope the cards don't go the way of stamps . I can't compete in the high dollar stamp auctions . The cards may get to be the same where the primo stuff is out of reach .

1974
 

I typed this out and posted it a long time ago in another thread, but here is an article in a collectibles magazine from 1974......

Sincerely, Clayton

I have a friend who is a huge sports fan season tickets best seats all sports etc. He however isn’t a baseball fan. As I have said prior I don’t follow all of the nuances of modern baseball so I’m not sure if he’s right.

His reasoning is modern baseball is too predictable and no fun. He says that the game is really controlled by a few dynasty’s/teams and that no matter how much you follow it you’re pretty much going to know who makes the finals the same guys sort of over and over. So if your team isn’t one of those teams your sort of just along for another boring ride to nowhere. He pointed out with other sports such as football your team can have bad years but every now and then there’s a shake up and your team can have a chance…not so much with baseball he said.

Again not sure if he’s on the money or not love to hear folks inputs.

I don't think that's true really.

Going back to 2003, 7 different teams have won the World Series.

Going back to 2003, 8 different teams have won the Super Bowl.

Going back to 2003, only 5 different NBA teams have won the championship.

Also... going back 20 years:

11 different SB champions.
10 different WS champions.
8 additional SB teams (losers).
8 additional WS teams (losers).

There is reality and there is perception. :)

And that perception I think comes from how the leagues differ.

Football has 32 teams and 12 make the playoffs.
Plus they have a salary cap, free agency, and generally short careers leading to a lot of turnover and not a lot of long term contracts.

Baseball has 30 teams and 10 make the playoffs. Those teams are also in fewer divisions, so there's less chance of any team making the playoffs.
Baseball also has no real salary cap, free agency, and longer careers leading to more long term contracts. That would seem to make things easier for the teams with more money. So a small market team is almost constantly rebuilding around someone new while the big market teams can lock in a great player for 5-10 years if they want to. (I've never really understood a young player wanting a long term contract- one of the most bizarre things I've heard about contracts was I think Mo Vaughn. "I'll only cost more next year, they should give me a long term contract" ?? If I felt I'd be making more next year and increasing for the next several, why would I want a long term contract at this years rate?)

So the impression is that the big money teams lock in all the good players leaving the small market teams out of it. Success as a team isn't entirely about how many stars you can sign. Great players help, but there are loads of teams that paid big money to finish out of the playoffs.

Granted, not every small market team is the As. Some problems are probably organizational problems making the team horrible for years. That's also true in football. There are teams that are clueless from the top down. Browns, Jets,recently the Cowboys, probably others. A team might not be any good with the players and coach/manager they have, but they will never get good if there's a new coach every year. there are exceptions, The 2012 RedSox with Valentine, had the talent and were just a bad team. Unless there's a situation like that, teams should hire the coach they think is the best fit, and give them a chance for more than a year.

I can't really say much about Basketball or Hockey. I don't watch much of either these days. Basketball started losing me in 96. Saw the second "dream team" at the Olympics They won by some huge margin but looked awful doing it. One guy missed an alleyoop dunk two times in a row before he finally got it. As much as the 92 team showed what the sport could be the 96 team showed what it should NOT be but was becoming. Just a collection of set pieces for a few people to display some skills of dubious value.
Hockey can no longer figure out just what teams are in the NHL, and when the season is. To think they were doing so well a few years ago and blew it all with two work stoppages over -- I'm not sure just what. Went from primetime network coverage to OLN or maybe ESPN2 overnight.

Steve B

Steve B, that's sort of the breakdown my buddy was saying....true or not that was his take.....on why he's not a huge baseball fan etc.

Absolutely. Teams like the 2010 and 2012 WS champ Giants were definitely not built like major market (media market) powerhouses. They won mainly through pitching and defense (see Gregor Blanco and Brandon Crawford in 2012 WS), while having an only middle teir offense... but an offense with grit that got timely hitting and great execution (hit run, bunt, butcher play, etc). Some small market teams like the Rays, Reds, A's have consistently competed these past several years.. The A's almost embarrassingly so the last 2 years against the Angels who bought an All Star team... And some large market teams have consistently floundered like the Mets and Cubs.

Clearly major market teams have an advantage in that they can consistently sign big free agents (Hamilton/Pujols), take bigger risks (Tanaka), and have room to fail when those risks don't pan out. Whereas small market teams have much less margin for error and can be totally buried by a single mistake.. Very curious to see how M's do with Cano's contract. If he's a .280 / 15 HR hitter there, that team could be stuck for a long time.

Regardless, to me it's great watching the smaller market teams that can maneuver and make it work by drafting well and developing that talent... Then often locking that talent up eary and relatively cheap by signing extensions through arbitration and the first couple free agent years. I think baseball is actually more interesting for these inequities, and it also often gives the casual fan an easy underdog to root for come October. MLB and ESPN need to wake up and get on board now and work harder to promote great stories like the Pirates/A's/Rays.. Maybe this year the Royals, and ease up on their NY/Boston fetish.

As a die hard Boston Red Sox fan I agree 100%!

Reds are actually a mid market team with a higher payroll than the Cubs or Mets (who actually have a rather small payroll). If we look at the 8 highest payrolls from last year we see that, in fact, larger payrolls do equal better and more likely championship teams.

N.Y. Yankees $230,401,445

Los Angeles Dodgers 214,830,909

Philadelphia 159,985,714

Boston 157,594,786

Detroit 150,471,844

Los Angeles Angels 141,896,250

San Francisco 138,042,111

Texas 128,714,475

None of the bottom 6 playoff teams in terms of payroll last season won a series past the wildcard. Parity isn't as good in baseball as some would like to think it is.

Great points and I agree with a lot of what you said. But the part I left quoted got me thinking around the expectations of what a chance at a championship should be and how it's tied into the regular season.

For instance, in football there are only 16 games, so it makes sense (to me) that more teams should be involved with the playoff structure since it is such as short season (game-wise).

The question then is with baseball's 162 game season, what is someone's expectation of how many teams should be involved in a playoff structure? One school of thought is that 162 games should give a good indication of which teams are the best and there should be only a few teams vying for a championship after such as long season. Another is that more teams should be involved (to make it more interesting/exciting?).

I totally understand the real reason playoffs were expanded was money, but that's beside the point. The possibility for a championship is what matters to the fan. And I think which school of thought you subscribe to regarding the number of teams in the playoffs will influence your perception as well.

I also think that there could be a correlation between one's preference on the baseball division/playoff structure and one's social/political views, but we'll leave that for the sociologists. :)

This post is why I posted that article about baseball card collecting from 1974, I figured it was an interesting way to gauge where the hobby was 40 years ago (I was about 3 years old when that article was written) and where it is at today. Seeing that I think a higher percentage of people on the board are in the 40(ish) range, many of them were around that young when the article was written as well. There are many on the board who were probably collecting then, and may refer to it as "the good ol' days" :D

An interesting thing to do would be to also take a look at salaries, attendance figures,etc. from 40 years back- if you think these things have to do with the longevity of the hobby- and compare both status of the hobby then and game attendance figures, salaries, etc. and see how they both stack up compared to now, in 2014. In that article, the Honus Wagner T206 was also considered "The Holy Grail" of baseball cards.......and cited a recent sale of a whopping $1,500.00!! :)

Sincerely, Clayton

The results are potentially skewed by using percentages. Given the increase in legal residents of the U.S., the actually number of folks who call baseball their favorite sport may have in fact, increased. Yet, the overall "percentage" of the population may have decreased. In addition, an overwhelming percentage of new U.S. residents have immigrated from parts of the world where the answer to the question, "What is your favorite sport?" is likely to not be baseball or American Football, but soccer (football). Ergo, the baseball "percentage" likely suffers. This could very well be a typical case of someone (not the OP) presenting "the facts" in a convenient fashion to lend credence to their point of view. Statistics can usually be spun to support what ever you want them to support.:D

True, I see your point. When I was in the 5th grade, we actively put together football teams during our lunch breaks. A kid from South Africa started attending our school and was in my class, and we became great friends. He actually had all of us playing soccer after awhile, as that was the popular sport where he was from. He also taught me how to play tennis (he was extremely good at it!) as that was very popular there too.

I also remember eating dinner at his home, and thought it was strange how everyone was eating with their forks upside down :o:D

Back on topic....I think the hobby will be just fine ;)

Sincerely, Clayton

Hockey is bigger, more popular, and drawing better ratings than it has in a long, long time. Certainly a lot more than before the last stoppage. It has never had primetime network coverage - at least in the last 30 years - outside of Canada. When it was on ESPN and ESPN2, that cable network intentionally tried to bury the league by constantly shuffling games around, pre-empting them, burying coverage in SportsCenter, or reducing coverage to simply highlights of fighting. They did this to appeal to the NBA and NFL and tank the value of the NHL TV contract. It worked. The NHL walked away and wandered off to OLN and was lost in the woods for a bit. Now the NHL has regular national coverage on NBCSN - which gets generally the same amount of households as ESPN - and has a massive ratings/attendance hit in its annual Winter Classic game. Attendance is the highest, %-wise, of any of the four major leagues. Revenues are up. The most recent TV contract is worth $2 billion.

In other words, hockey is doing just fine and is actually growing. The narrative from 2004 isn't true anymore.

Wasn't necessarily saying baseball has good "parity". I was more making the point that I like the plotlines/drama its salary inequities help create (just my opinion). That's not saying I think it's fair/balanced system, or that I don't get frustrated watching huge spenders (like the Yanks, Dodgers, Sox, etc) seemingly snatch up the top 2-3 major free agents each year, I do. However, I think most major sports make for better viewing when there are a few clear powers and a bunch of scrappy challengers nipping at their heals. I mean how fun was it to root for whoever was playing the early to mid 90's Duke teams come March, or the 90's Cowboys (or my Niners).. especially when your team is no longer in it.

Re team salaries- of the top 8 payroll teams you list, 3 made the playoffs in 2013. Of the 10 total play off participants, just as many teams (3) had bottom 3rd payrolls, and the other 4 teams were in the middle 3rd. That's a pretty even spread.. and just about any team that makes the postseason has a shot. Regardless of salary tier, if you have a strong 1-2 (-3-4) staff and a bit of hitting, you've got a chance. As was the case with 2010 Giants, their playoff rotation 1 thru 4, set up man, and closer were ALL homegrown, young and modestly paid (any team that drafts well has a shot to do this) and were the keys to their victory. Even though their $98 mill payroll was 10th in baseball, $31 mill of that hardly contributed to either their division championship or playoff/WS run (Zito was left off postseason roster, Rowand was the 4th outfielder). This to me means any well constructed team built on lower cost young home grown talent has a shot to get it done against the huge $$$ teams.

They have a shot
 

but they do not have a shot year in and year out. It is also much tougher to have a kansas city chiefs type turnaround in one year in baseball. There are more baseball teams at the start of each season with absolutely 0 chance of winning it all then there are in football.

I agree that it makes for an interesting narrative. My point with the salary list was simply to illustrate that 7 of the last 8 championship squads were in roughly the top 7 in terms of payroll. The Cinderella story is interesting just like it is in college basketball, unfortunately it just doesn't ever pan out in either sport save for a very few rare occasions.

Interesting. You can tell I haven't followed it all that closely for some time.

I wonder if I'm confusing the once great local coverage for national coverage. The Bruins were on TV a lot before the first stoppage, hardly at all after. Even NESN backed off a lot.
ESPN shuffling them around must have really hurt, that's almost a guarantee of poor ratings for any show. (The local outlet did that to Babylon 5) The league being on OLN was a big surprise, since OLN at the time was sort of like ESPN when it began, showing pretty much any sporting event they could.

Hopefully they'll continue building back up. I think there's probably a lot of international interest which probably helps (I could be wrong)

Steve B

"Acquire"

No opinion on the topic at hand, but I just had to say that I LOVE that title for a collectibles magazine. It pretty well sums it up, in one word, regardless of what genre of collectibles you are talking about.

Yeah, it's a great name for sure :D

It's interesting to read about the other types of items people were collecting back then. Toward the end of the article about collecting gold, they were contemplating whether gold would ever hit $300.00 an ounce....and Dr. Franz Pick, an internationally recognized currency expert and a premier advocate of hard money, appears convinced gold will be selling at $400.00 within the predictable future :D:D

Gotta love it :)

Sincerely, Clayton

For me, that's part of the appeal... if Cinderella teams were to actually win every other year, it's no longer as exciting. I was rooting hard for Butler during their recent tournement runs and the fact they came up short both times took little or nothing away from the fun. Had they won both years, or had VCU or George Mason won titles a few years earlier, these Villanova/NC State types of runs would cease being so exceptional. Too much parity often means there are no truly dominant teams... and you need dominant teams to make the David v Goliath matchups interesting. The BCS screwed up in so many ways, but those few times it pitted the Utahs/Boise States v the Alabamas/Oklahomas, it was AWESOME. MLB's current imbalance provides much opportunity each postseason for these types of matchups.

Well said, Ian!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk