baseball's falling popularity and its affect on our hobby

[packs]

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.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

[steve B]

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

[wonkaticket]

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.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by steve B

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. ...

Steve B

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.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by steve B

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.

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.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Tabe

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.

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

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by tschock

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.

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.

[obcbobd]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

MLB and ESPN need .. ease up on their NY/Boston fetish.

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

[t206trader]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

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.

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.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by t206trader

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.

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.

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.

[glynparson]

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.

[t206trader]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

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.

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.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by t206trader

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.

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.