Going down the "Baseball is dying" path (split)

[stevejrogers]

="patona314"] SteveJRogers wrote: Gary Matthew Jr.'s new contract is good evidence that baseball is alive and well. I've seen insane NBA and NHL contracts, are we saying they are still alive and well in the sense MLB is?

metsmarathon Dec 05 2006 11:15 PM

SteveJRogers wrote: ]my head hurts from all of this. if the braves never sell out NLDS games, tehn they're static, and aren't gettingany worse are they? no problem there then. Oh lets see, were there empty seats at Yankee Stadium's afternoon ALDS game this past October? Last I checked the Yanks have made postseason play every year since 1995. the fullness of yankee stadium speaks to the relative ease of filling a stadium in new york as compared to a stadium in atlanta. the consistency with which that stadium is filled speaks to the local level of interest in both the specific team and how well they are performaning, and to a lesser extent in the sport in general. if the braves' ticket sales remain mostly static, then the interest level is also static, and we can assume that there is no appreciable loss in interest in the team and the sport. if your statement is correct, that the braves never sell out nlds games, then the problem is neither getting better nor worse in atlanta. should we lament that baseball isn;t the dangerous choice steve? i don't really see the Xgames picking up too much steam in the mainstream. maybe UFC has become more mainstream, but they had to clean themselves up, make their sport safer and more palatable for that to happen. so, i don't really know waht that means for you. and was the fanbase so heavily judaic, that an insufficient quantity of gentiles was available to fill the stadium in their absence? or were teh good christians observing as well, as a sign of good will and neighborliness? c'mon!

SteveJRogers Dec 05 2006 11:24 PM

] should we lament that baseball isn;t the dangerous choice steve? i don't really see the Xgames picking up too much steam in the mainstream. maybe UFC has become more mainstream, but they had to clean themselves up, make their sport safer and more palatable for that to happen. so, i don't really know waht that means for you. There was a different undertone that I was going with "dangerous" there than a bloodsport or a sport that targets pot headed slackers. There is still sadly a segment of the population that still sees certain sports like baseball as "white" and basketball as "black" and mostly in white, suburban America. ] and was the fanbase so heavily judaic, that an insufficient quantity of gentiles was available to fill the stadium in their absence? or were teh good christians observing as well, as a sign of good will and neighborliness? c'mon! I was just saying what usually is given as an "excuse" Maybe it was more of the fact that it was a work/school day as well, and a clear sign that baseball's time as a weekday afternoon affair would be coming to an end (of course that wouldn't happen untill network TV packages started coming into play)

patona314 Dec 05 2006 11:29 PM

="SteveJRogers"] patona314 wrote: ="SteveJRogers"] Gary Matthew Jr.'s new contract is good evidence that baseball is alive and well. I've seen insane NBA and NHL contracts, are we saying they are still alive and well in the sense MLB is? i'm saying that baseball generates a shitload of revenue. otherwise jr. doesn't get this kind of money. remember, the arguement was that baseball was on the decline for what it's worth, the NBA and NHL (since you mentioned it) smell like my grandfather Frayed Knot Dec 05 2006 11:31 PM ]Different time, different era in terms of use of discretionary income. But the TV ratings - which is basically your only ammo once we brush aside these sepia-toned phony "memories" of the good ol' days that never were - AREN'T a result of different times, different factors? Computers, on-demand movies, 200 channels, and a multitude of other sports & entertainment choices be damned: TV ratings are down therefore baseball must be dying, there's no other answer!! Y'see, this is an example (another one actually) of your bullshit tactic of coming up with the answer first and then cherry-picking and bending evidence to retro-fit your conclusion. Gee, Monday Night Football ratings are a fraction of where they once were to the point where the network was losing millions on it (as the networks do on the Sunday packages btw) and shifted the whole deal to their cable baby brother. Oh yeah, and the NFL expanded their season, first to 16 games and then to 16 games over 17 weeks (they even tried 18) and expanded their playoffs for the sole reason of making the networks happy or else accept a smaller right package ($$) had they not done so and couldn't bear the PR hit they would have taken for that ... therefore, Football is a dying sport too!!! See how much fun this is? ]Also wasn't that low attendance often attributed to it being one of the High Holy Days for the Jewish faith? No. Edgy DC Dec 05 2006 11:33 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 05 2006 11:34 PM Let's corrall this. ]I never said MLB baseball would die out completely, I mean the NHL, MLS and WNBA are still in operation and all, Then this is stupid (even stupider!) because that's what you open with. ]I'm just saying that people are wrong in thinking A) it will ever retake the top spot A comment made by nobody and nobody. ] and that it's current standing is secure and there will be a time where it will no longer be in the top ten in terms of sports. I read today that there'll be a time when we all turn to grey goo. All sorts of things will happen in time. The point you disputed was "To be fair, Bud's other legacies will be enormous spikes in the popularity and profitability of the game that enriched all its participants but the fans." This remains a pretty fair point. Obvious really. Your arguments particularly reinforce it. Johnny Dickshot Dec 05 2006 11:33 PM Rogers, we've indulged enough of this silly supposition, bad math and tortured logic. I'm sorry to inform you you've been traded to Kansas City. metsmarathon Dec 05 2006 11:47 PM i'm still trying to figure out why baseball's being a safe choice for families and kids makes it a bad, doomed thing. i guess maybe that makes it trend towards uncool? but then, its most popular in new york and LA, the beacons of coolness in american culture - the trendsetters! and its the most popular amongst the most growingest demographic - hispanics - and another terrifically influencial fan base - 18-27 year olds.. so, its fan base is bot entrencd & stable, and growing and influencial, and its most popular in our traditional cultural bellwethers. and somehow it is dying. seriously. i do not get it. but 37,000 fans in philly is an empty stadium too. Elster88 Dec 06 2006 12:29 AM This thread is amusing but ultimately... SteveJRogers Dec 07 2006 07:07 PM Yancy Street Gang wrote: Ted, if it helps any I had never heard of Harden either. Twenty years ago I knew who every player was. Since 1994, I only follow the Mets and I'm not embarrassed to admit to my lack of knowledge of other teams. I'll know all about Harden if he becomes a Met. And if he doesn't, he simply doesn't matter to me. I REST my case! And no, baseball is not dying because the proprietor of UMDB has no idea who one of the best young arms in the AL is. Maybe it's a different argument alltogether I don't know, that sports has lost any sense of "mistique" about them that the true passion of following the entire league is gone for many. But can I at least say the interest in baseball is starkly different than it has been in the past? Maybe it's not on a respirator or anything, but it's just not the same "sport." And no, that's not "waxing nostalgic" for something that really wasn't there to begin with, but maybe just too much "real life" has entered the main stream discussion of baseball. Maybe that's what should have been my argument = Yancy Street Gang Dec 07 2006 07:18 PM My lack of interest in Harden is a reflection on me more than it is on the health of the game. If I was 20 years old right now instead of 43, I'm sure I'd know who he was. SteveJRogers Dec 07 2006 07:20 PM I know Yance, just needed something to latch on to in order to somehow vaildate or justify my belief that baseball just isn't the same. I really think there are more of you out there than people here care to admit. KC Dec 07 2006 07:49 PM SJR: >>>I really think there are more of you out there than people here care to admit.<<< Yeah, the number of kickass team database sites out there is getting to be a such a yawner. Steve, you're a *****edited for family viewing*****. Validate and justify that. DocTee Dec 07 2006 07:50 PM Steve: How do you account for the proliferation of fantasy leagues/rotisserie leagues/ and sim leagues? Doesn't that elevate Joe Six-Packs knowledge of out-of-towners and show that the "average"fan is just as interested in MLB today as was the strat-o-matic guru of the halcyon 1960s and 70s? SteveJRogers Dec 07 2006 08:23 PM DocTee wrote: Steve: How do you account for the proliferation of fantasy leagues/rotisserie leagues/ and sim leagues? Doesn't that elevate Joe Six-Packs knowledge of out-of-towners and show that the "average"fan is just as interested in MLB today as was the strat-o-matic guru of the halcyon 1960s and 70s? No, it really doesn't. The proliferation is more a byproduct of the information age. Yes it means that fantasy league guy is no longer thought of in the same vein as Dungeons and Dragons guy and the sterotype of living in their parent's basement with no girl friend and barely self sustaining themselves is a thing of the past, but the fact that there are more players out there is a byproduct of more ways to sign up for leagues and whatnot. The stigma of it is gone, but does that say much? There could be just as many people who sign up for a league and either never make a move after the first month or so or only make transactions based on knowledge of the player. "Yeah I'll give you Fransico Liriano for Mark Mulder straight up" Edgy DC Dec 07 2006 09:42 PM He had rested and everything. metsmarathon Dec 07 2006 11:54 PM SteveJRogers wrote: ="Yancy Street Gang"]Ted, if it helps any I had never heard of Harden either. Twenty years ago I knew who every player was. Since 1994, I only follow the Mets and I'm not embarrassed to admit to my lack of knowledge of other teams. I'll know all about Harden if he becomes a Met. And if he doesn't, he simply doesn't matter to me. I REST my case! And no, baseball is not dying because the proprietor of UMDB has no idea who one of the best young arms in the AL is. Maybe it's a different argument alltogether I don't know, that sports has lost any sense of "mistique" about them that the true passion of following the entire league is gone for many. But can I at least say the interest in baseball is starkly different than it has been in the past? Maybe it's not on a respirator or anything, but it's just not the same "sport." And no, that's not "waxing nostalgic" for something that really wasn't there to begin with, but maybe just too much "real life" has entered the main stream discussion of baseball. Maybe that's what should have been my argument = if you ever do figure out what your argument is, maybe its that you think sport in general is doomed to suffocate from the weight of its own success. perhaps refine that to read professional sport as big ticket mainstream avenues of entertainment. metsmarathon Dec 08 2006 12:05 AM SteveJRogers wrote: No, it really doesn't. The proliferation is more a byproduct of the information age. i'm not sure how much more the internet could proliferate right now. there are cows in kansas with their own myspace pages. well, i actually haven't checked that, but i wouldn't be terribly surprised. i would surmise that the number of households with access to the internet either at home or at work has pretty much plateaued for a while, and is likely to be tracking closely to the rate of population increase, as there really aren't all too many people off the grid anymore. ]The stigma of it is gone, but does that say much? There could be just as many people who sign up for a league and either never make a move after the first month or so or only make transactions based on knowledge of the player. "Yeah I'll give you Fransico Liriano for Mark Mulder straight up" this sounds like something that could be discerned, perhaps in a sorta-scientific poll. and if they sign back up the next time around, i would surmise that they are still sufficiently interested in baseball to risk anonymous humiliation at the hands of perfect strangers. also, the proliferation issue cuts both ways. increased proliferation of internet means increased proliferation of alternate sources of entertainment, casual games for instance, that would be perhaps more enticing to Joey Sixes if he really weren't all too into baseball. yet in the face of this torrent of distracting media, he still makes the effort to sign up and play for a trophy that isn't even there. that has to count for something. and of course, its all fairly quantifiable. how many people sign up for fantasy baseball? how many are new to it? how may people don't pay attention, either to their teams or their transactions? how many of them quit after a year? how many come back? how many pay more attention to baseball as a result? how many pay less? Frayed Knot Dec 08 2006 10:18 AM ="SteveJRogers"]I know Yance, just needed something to latch on to in order to somehow vaildate or justify my belief that baseball just isn't the same. Oh good, for a second there I was afraid that you were reaching conclusions first and then selectively searching for evidence to "prove' your pre-determined outcome. ]But can I at least say the interest in baseball is starkly different than it has been in the past? Maybe it's not on a respirator or anything, but it's just not the same "sport." All of which pre-supposes this notion that you've used as the entire basis for your thesis that fans everywhere in days gone by knew everything about all players on all teams, something you haven't come close to backing up other than to merely assume it to be true. I'll contend that the advent of national TV packages which bring a half-dozen out-of-town games per week to most fans and even more to those who opt for them, plus the internet/inforrmation age and almost hourly hi-light/wrap-up type shows bring a whole lot more knowledge of players and the game itself to the average fan today as compared to his counterpart of yesteryear. The are myriad stories from players of old whose ML debut was also the first first big league game and stadium they ever saw. I personally can remember watching All-star games as a kid simply to find out what some of the AL stars looked like. Guys like Harmon Killebrew & Frank Howard were almost akin to exotic foods one had heard of buy never sampled simply because they were merely names in black & white in newspapaers who you rarely got to see otherwise. And this doesn't even include the vast majority of the country whose lone exposure was Game of the Week plus maybe some far-off radio signal.

[metsmarathon]

SteveJRogers wrote: ]my head hurts from all of this. if the braves never sell out NLDS games, tehn they're static, and aren't gettingany worse are they? no problem there then. Oh lets see, were there empty seats at Yankee Stadium's afternoon ALDS game this past October? Last I checked the Yanks have made postseason play every year since 1995.

the fullness of yankee stadium speaks to the relative ease of filling a stadium in new york as compared to a stadium in atlanta. the consistency with which that stadium is filled speaks to the local level of interest in both the specific team and how well they are performaning, and to a lesser extent in the sport in general. if the braves' ticket sales remain mostly static, then the interest level is also static, and we can assume that there is no appreciable loss in interest in the team and the sport.

if your statement is correct, that the braves never sell out nlds games, then the problem is neither getting better nor worse in atlanta.

should we lament that baseball isn;t the dangerous choice steve? i don't really see the Xgames picking up too much steam in the mainstream. maybe UFC has become more mainstream, but they had to clean themselves up, make their sport safer and more palatable for that to happen. so, i don't really know waht that means for you.

and was the fanbase so heavily judaic, that an insufficient quantity of gentiles was available to fill the stadium in their absence? or were teh good christians observing as well, as a sign of good will and neighborliness? c'mon!

[stevejrogers]

] should we lament that baseball isn;t the dangerous choice steve? i don't really see the Xgames picking up too much steam in the mainstream. maybe UFC has become more mainstream, but they had to clean themselves up, make their sport safer and more palatable for that to happen. so, i don't really know waht that means for you.

There was a different undertone that I was going with "dangerous" there than a bloodsport or a sport that targets pot headed slackers. There is still sadly a segment of the population that still sees certain sports like baseball as "white" and basketball as "black" and mostly in white, suburban America.

] and was the fanbase so heavily judaic, that an insufficient quantity of gentiles was available to fill the stadium in their absence? or were teh good christians observing as well, as a sign of good will and neighborliness? c'mon!

I was just saying what usually is given as an "excuse"
Maybe it was more of the fact that it was a work/school day as well, and a clear sign that baseball's time as a weekday afternoon affair would be coming to an end (of course that wouldn't happen untill network TV packages started coming into play)

[Guest patona314]

="SteveJRogers"] patona314 wrote: ="SteveJRogers"] Gary Matthew Jr.'s new contract is good evidence that baseball is alive and well. I've seen insane NBA and NHL contracts, are we saying they are still alive and well in the sense MLB is? i'm saying that baseball generates a shitload of revenue. otherwise jr. doesn't get this kind of money. remember, the arguement was that baseball was on the decline for what it's worth, the NBA and NHL (since you mentioned it) smell like my grandfather

Frayed Knot Dec 05 2006 11:31 PM

]Different time, different era in terms of use of discretionary income. But the TV ratings - which is basically your only ammo once we brush aside these sepia-toned phony "memories" of the good ol' days that never were - AREN'T a result of different times, different factors? Computers, on-demand movies, 200 channels, and a multitude of other sports & entertainment choices be damned: TV ratings are down therefore baseball must be dying, there's no other answer!! Y'see, this is an example (another one actually) of your bullshit tactic of coming up with the answer first and then cherry-picking and bending evidence to retro-fit your conclusion. Gee, Monday Night Football ratings are a fraction of where they once were to the point where the network was losing millions on it (as the networks do on the Sunday packages btw) and shifted the whole deal to their cable baby brother. Oh yeah, and the NFL expanded their season, first to 16 games and then to 16 games over 17 weeks (they even tried 18) and expanded their playoffs for the sole reason of making the networks happy or else accept a smaller right package ($$) had they not done so and couldn't bear the PR hit they would have taken for that ... therefore, Football is a dying sport too!!! See how much fun this is? ]Also wasn't that low attendance often attributed to it being one of the High Holy Days for the Jewish faith? No.

Edgy DC Dec 05 2006 11:33 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 05 2006 11:34 PM

Let's corrall this. ]I never said MLB baseball would die out completely, I mean the NHL, MLS and WNBA are still in operation and all, Then this is stupid (even stupider!) because that's what you open with. ]I'm just saying that people are wrong in thinking A) it will ever retake the top spot A comment made by nobody and nobody. ] and that it's current standing is secure and there will be a time where it will no longer be in the top ten in terms of sports. I read today that there'll be a time when we all turn to grey goo. All sorts of things will happen in time. The point you disputed was "To be fair, Bud's other legacies will be enormous spikes in the popularity and profitability of the game that enriched all its participants but the fans." This remains a pretty fair point. Obvious really. Your arguments particularly reinforce it.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 05 2006 11:33 PM

Rogers, we've indulged enough of this silly supposition, bad math and tortured logic. I'm sorry to inform you you've been traded to Kansas City.

metsmarathon Dec 05 2006 11:47 PM

i'm still trying to figure out why baseball's being a safe choice for families and kids makes it a bad, doomed thing. i guess maybe that makes it trend towards uncool? but then, its most popular in new york and LA, the beacons of coolness in american culture - the trendsetters! and its the most popular amongst the most growingest demographic - hispanics - and another terrifically influencial fan base - 18-27 year olds.. so, its fan base is bot entrencd & stable, and growing and influencial, and its most popular in our traditional cultural bellwethers. and somehow it is dying. seriously. i do not get it. but 37,000 fans in philly is an empty stadium too.

Elster88 Dec 06 2006 12:29 AM

This thread is amusing but ultimately...

SteveJRogers Dec 07 2006 07:07 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Ted, if it helps any I had never heard of Harden either. Twenty years ago I knew who every player was. Since 1994, I only follow the Mets and I'm not embarrassed to admit to my lack of knowledge of other teams. I'll know all about Harden if he becomes a Met. And if he doesn't, he simply doesn't matter to me. I REST my case! And no, baseball is not dying because the proprietor of UMDB has no idea who one of the best young arms in the AL is. Maybe it's a different argument alltogether I don't know, that sports has lost any sense of "mistique" about them that the true passion of following the entire league is gone for many. But can I at least say the interest in baseball is starkly different than it has been in the past? Maybe it's not on a respirator or anything, but it's just not the same "sport." And no, that's not "waxing nostalgic" for something that really wasn't there to begin with, but maybe just too much "real life" has entered the main stream discussion of baseball. Maybe that's what should have been my argument =

Yancy Street Gang Dec 07 2006 07:18 PM

My lack of interest in Harden is a reflection on me more than it is on the health of the game. If I was 20 years old right now instead of 43, I'm sure I'd know who he was.

SteveJRogers Dec 07 2006 07:20 PM

I know Yance, just needed something to latch on to in order to somehow vaildate or justify my belief that baseball just isn't the same. I really think there are more of you out there than people here care to admit.

KC Dec 07 2006 07:49 PM

SJR: >>>I really think there are more of you out there than people here care to admit.<<< Yeah, the number of kickass team database sites out there is getting to be a such a yawner. Steve, you're a *****edited for family viewing*****. Validate and justify that.

DocTee Dec 07 2006 07:50 PM

Steve: How do you account for the proliferation of fantasy leagues/rotisserie leagues/ and sim leagues? Doesn't that elevate Joe Six-Packs knowledge of out-of-towners and show that the "average"fan is just as interested in MLB today as was the strat-o-matic guru of the halcyon 1960s and 70s?

SteveJRogers Dec 07 2006 08:23 PM

DocTee wrote: Steve: How do you account for the proliferation of fantasy leagues/rotisserie leagues/ and sim leagues? Doesn't that elevate Joe Six-Packs knowledge of out-of-towners and show that the "average"fan is just as interested in MLB today as was the strat-o-matic guru of the halcyon 1960s and 70s? No, it really doesn't. The proliferation is more a byproduct of the information age. Yes it means that fantasy league guy is no longer thought of in the same vein as Dungeons and Dragons guy and the sterotype of living in their parent's basement with no girl friend and barely self sustaining themselves is a thing of the past, but the fact that there are more players out there is a byproduct of more ways to sign up for leagues and whatnot. The stigma of it is gone, but does that say much? There could be just as many people who sign up for a league and either never make a move after the first month or so or only make transactions based on knowledge of the player. "Yeah I'll give you Fransico Liriano for Mark Mulder straight up"

Edgy DC Dec 07 2006 09:42 PM

He had rested and everything.

metsmarathon Dec 07 2006 11:54 PM

SteveJRogers wrote: ="Yancy Street Gang"]Ted, if it helps any I had never heard of Harden either. Twenty years ago I knew who every player was. Since 1994, I only follow the Mets and I'm not embarrassed to admit to my lack of knowledge of other teams. I'll know all about Harden if he becomes a Met. And if he doesn't, he simply doesn't matter to me. I REST my case! And no, baseball is not dying because the proprietor of UMDB has no idea who one of the best young arms in the AL is. Maybe it's a different argument alltogether I don't know, that sports has lost any sense of "mistique" about them that the true passion of following the entire league is gone for many. But can I at least say the interest in baseball is starkly different than it has been in the past? Maybe it's not on a respirator or anything, but it's just not the same "sport." And no, that's not "waxing nostalgic" for something that really wasn't there to begin with, but maybe just too much "real life" has entered the main stream discussion of baseball. Maybe that's what should have been my argument = if you ever do figure out what your argument is, maybe its that you think sport in general is doomed to suffocate from the weight of its own success. perhaps refine that to read professional sport as big ticket mainstream avenues of entertainment.

metsmarathon Dec 08 2006 12:05 AM

SteveJRogers wrote: No, it really doesn't. The proliferation is more a byproduct of the information age. i'm not sure how much more the internet could proliferate right now. there are cows in kansas with their own myspace pages. well, i actually haven't checked that, but i wouldn't be terribly surprised. i would surmise that the number of households with access to the internet either at home or at work has pretty much plateaued for a while, and is likely to be tracking closely to the rate of population increase, as there really aren't all too many people off the grid anymore. ]The stigma of it is gone, but does that say much? There could be just as many people who sign up for a league and either never make a move after the first month or so or only make transactions based on knowledge of the player. "Yeah I'll give you Fransico Liriano for Mark Mulder straight up" this sounds like something that could be discerned, perhaps in a sorta-scientific poll. and if they sign back up the next time around, i would surmise that they are still sufficiently interested in baseball to risk anonymous humiliation at the hands of perfect strangers. also, the proliferation issue cuts both ways. increased proliferation of internet means increased proliferation of alternate sources of entertainment, casual games for instance, that would be perhaps more enticing to Joey Sixes if he really weren't all too into baseball. yet in the face of this torrent of distracting media, he still makes the effort to sign up and play for a trophy that isn't even there. that has to count for something. and of course, its all fairly quantifiable. how many people sign up for fantasy baseball? how many are new to it? how may people don't pay attention, either to their teams or their transactions? how many of them quit after a year? how many come back? how many pay more attention to baseball as a result? how many pay less?

Frayed Knot Dec 08 2006 10:18 AM

="SteveJRogers"]I know Yance, just needed something to latch on to in order to somehow vaildate or justify my belief that baseball just isn't the same. Oh good, for a second there I was afraid that you were reaching conclusions first and then selectively searching for evidence to "prove' your pre-determined outcome. ]But can I at least say the interest in baseball is starkly different than it has been in the past? Maybe it's not on a respirator or anything, but it's just not the same "sport." All of which pre-supposes this notion that you've used as the entire basis for your thesis that fans everywhere in days gone by knew everything about all players on all teams, something you haven't come close to backing up other than to merely assume it to be true. I'll contend that the advent of national TV packages which bring a half-dozen out-of-town games per week to most fans and even more to those who opt for them, plus the internet/inforrmation age and almost hourly hi-light/wrap-up type shows bring a whole lot more knowledge of players and the game itself to the average fan today as compared to his counterpart of yesteryear. The are myriad stories from players of old whose ML debut was also the first first big league game and stadium they ever saw. I personally can remember watching All-star games as a kid simply to find out what some of the AL stars looked like. Guys like Harmon Killebrew & Frank Howard were almost akin to exotic foods one had heard of buy never sampled simply because they were merely names in black & white in newspapaers who you rarely got to see otherwise. And this doesn't even include the vast majority of the country whose lone exposure was Game of the Week plus maybe some far-off radio signal.

[Frayed Knot]

]Different time, different era in terms of use of discretionary income.

But the TV ratings - which is basically your only ammo once we brush aside these sepia-toned phony "memories" of the good ol' days that never were - AREN'T a result of different times, different factors? Computers, on-demand movies, 200 channels, and a multitude of other sports & entertainment choices be damned: TV ratings are down therefore baseball must be dying, there's no other answer!!

Y'see, this is an example (another one actually) of your bullshit tactic of coming up with the answer first and then cherry-picking and bending evidence to retro-fit your conclusion.

Gee, Monday Night Football ratings are a fraction of where they once were to the point where the network was losing millions on it (as the networks do on the Sunday packages btw) and shifted the whole deal to their cable baby brother. Oh yeah, and the NFL expanded their season, first to 16 games and then to 16 games over 17 weeks (they even tried 18) and expanded their playoffs for the sole reason of making the networks happy or else accept a smaller right package ($$) had they not done so and couldn't bear the PR hit they would have taken for that ... therefore, Football is a dying sport too!!!

See how much fun this is?

]Also wasn't that low attendance often attributed to it being one of the High Holy Days for the Jewish faith?

No.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Let's corrall this.

]I never said MLB baseball would die out completely, I mean the NHL, MLS and WNBA are still in operation and all,

Then this is stupid (even stupider!) because that's what you open with.

]I'm just saying that people are wrong in thinking A) it will ever retake the top spot

A comment made by nobody and nobody.

] and that it's current standing is secure and there will be a time where it will no longer be in the top ten in terms of sports.

I read today that there'll be a time when we all turn to grey goo. All sorts of things will happen in time. The point you disputed was "To be fair, Bud's other legacies will be enormous spikes in the popularity and profitability of the game that enriched all its participants but the fans."

This remains a pretty fair point. Obvious really. Your arguments particularly reinforce it.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Rogers, we've indulged enough of this silly supposition, bad math and tortured logic.

I'm sorry to inform you you've been traded to Kansas City.

[metsmarathon]

i'm still trying to figure out why baseball's being a safe choice for families and kids makes it a bad, doomed thing.

i guess maybe that makes it trend towards uncool? but then, its most popular in new york and LA, the beacons of coolness in american culture - the trendsetters! and its the most popular amongst the most growingest demographic - hispanics - and another terrifically influencial fan base - 18-27 year olds..

so, its fan base is bot entrencd & stable, and growing and influencial, and its most popular in our traditional cultural bellwethers.

and somehow it is dying. seriously. i do not get it.

but 37,000 fans in philly is an empty stadium too.

[Elster88]

This thread is amusing but ultimately...

[stevejrogers]

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Ted, if it helps any I had never heard of Harden either. Twenty years ago I knew who every player was. Since 1994, I only follow the Mets and I'm not embarrassed to admit to my lack of knowledge of other teams. I'll know all about Harden if he becomes a Met. And if he doesn't, he simply doesn't matter to me.

I REST my case!

And no, baseball is not dying because the proprietor of UMDB has no idea who one of the best young arms in the AL is. Maybe it's a different argument alltogether I don't know, that sports has lost any sense of "mistique" about them that the true passion of following the entire league is gone for many.

But can I at least say the interest in baseball is starkly different than it has been in the past? Maybe it's not on a respirator or anything, but it's just not the same "sport."

And no, that's not "waxing nostalgic" for something that really wasn't there to begin with, but maybe just too much "real life" has entered the main stream discussion of baseball. Maybe that's what should have been my argument =

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

My lack of interest in Harden is a reflection on me more than it is on the health of the game.

If I was 20 years old right now instead of 43, I'm sure I'd know who he was.

[stevejrogers]

I know Yance, just needed something to latch on to in order to somehow vaildate or justify my belief that baseball just isn't the same. I really think there are more of you out there than people here care to admit.

[Guest KC]

SJR: >>>I really think there are more of you out there than people here care to admit.<<<

Yeah, the number of kickass team database sites out there is getting to
be a such a yawner. Steve, you're a *****edited for family viewing*****.

Validate and justify that.

[DocTee]

Steve: How do you account for the proliferation of fantasy leagues/rotisserie leagues/ and sim leagues? Doesn't that elevate Joe Six-Packs knowledge of out-of-towners and show that the "average"fan is just as interested in MLB today as was the strat-o-matic guru of the halcyon 1960s and 70s?

[stevejrogers]

DocTee wrote: Steve: How do you account for the proliferation of fantasy leagues/rotisserie leagues/ and sim leagues? Doesn't that elevate Joe Six-Packs knowledge of out-of-towners and show that the "average"fan is just as interested in MLB today as was the strat-o-matic guru of the halcyon 1960s and 70s?

No, it really doesn't. The proliferation is more a byproduct of the information age.

Yes it means that fantasy league guy is no longer thought of in the same vein as Dungeons and Dragons guy and the sterotype of living in their parent's basement with no girl friend and barely self sustaining themselves is a thing of the past, but the fact that there are more players out there is a byproduct of more ways to sign up for leagues and whatnot.

The stigma of it is gone, but does that say much? There could be just as many people who sign up for a league and either never make a move after the first month or so or only make transactions based on knowledge of the player. "Yeah I'll give you Fransico Liriano for Mark Mulder straight up"

[Guest Edgy DC]

He had rested and everything.

[metsmarathon]

SteveJRogers wrote: ="Yancy Street Gang"]Ted, if it helps any I had never heard of Harden either. Twenty years ago I knew who every player was. Since 1994, I only follow the Mets and I'm not embarrassed to admit to my lack of knowledge of other teams. I'll know all about Harden if he becomes a Met. And if he doesn't, he simply doesn't matter to me. I REST my case! And no, baseball is not dying because the proprietor of UMDB has no idea who one of the best young arms in the AL is. Maybe it's a different argument alltogether I don't know, that sports has lost any sense of "mistique" about them that the true passion of following the entire league is gone for many. But can I at least say the interest in baseball is starkly different than it has been in the past? Maybe it's not on a respirator or anything, but it's just not the same "sport." And no, that's not "waxing nostalgic" for something that really wasn't there to begin with, but maybe just too much "real life" has entered the main stream discussion of baseball. Maybe that's what should have been my argument =

if you ever do figure out what your argument is, maybe its that you think sport in general is doomed to suffocate from the weight of its own success.

perhaps refine that to read professional sport as big ticket mainstream avenues of entertainment.

[metsmarathon]

SteveJRogers wrote: No, it really doesn't. The proliferation is more a byproduct of the information age.

i'm not sure how much more the internet could proliferate right now. there are cows in kansas with their own myspace pages. well, i actually haven't checked that, but i wouldn't be terribly surprised.

i would surmise that the number of households with access to the internet either at home or at work has pretty much plateaued for a while, and is likely to be tracking closely to the rate of population increase, as there really aren't all too many people off the grid anymore.

]The stigma of it is gone, but does that say much? There could be just as many people who sign up for a league and either never make a move after the first month or so or only make transactions based on knowledge of the player. "Yeah I'll give you Fransico Liriano for Mark Mulder straight up"

this sounds like something that could be discerned, perhaps in a sorta-scientific poll.

and if they sign back up the next time around, i would surmise that they are still sufficiently interested in baseball to risk anonymous humiliation at the hands of perfect strangers.

also, the proliferation issue cuts both ways. increased proliferation of internet means increased proliferation of alternate sources of entertainment, casual games for instance, that would be perhaps more enticing to Joey Sixes if he really weren't all too into baseball. yet in the face of this torrent of distracting media, he still makes the effort to sign up and play for a trophy that isn't even there. that has to count for something.

and of course, its all fairly quantifiable. how many people sign up for fantasy baseball? how many are new to it? how may people don't pay attention, either to their teams or their transactions? how many of them quit after a year? how many come back? how many pay more attention to baseball as a result? how many pay less?

[Frayed Knot]

="SteveJRogers"]I know Yance, just needed something to latch on to in order to somehow vaildate or justify my belief that baseball just isn't the same.

Oh good, for a second there I was afraid that you were reaching conclusions first and then selectively searching for evidence to "prove' your pre-determined outcome.

]But can I at least say the interest in baseball is starkly different than it has been in the past? Maybe it's not on a respirator or anything, but it's just not the same "sport."

All of which pre-supposes this notion that you've used as the entire basis for your thesis that fans everywhere in days gone by knew everything about all players on all teams, something you haven't come close to backing up other than to merely assume it to be true.

I'll contend that the advent of national TV packages which bring a half-dozen out-of-town games per week to most fans and even more to those who opt for them, plus the internet/inforrmation age and almost hourly hi-light/wrap-up type shows bring a whole lot more knowledge of players and the game itself to the average fan today as compared to his counterpart of yesteryear. The are myriad stories from players of old whose ML debut was also the first first big league game and stadium they ever saw. I personally can remember watching All-star games as a kid simply to find out what some of the AL stars looked like. Guys like Harmon Killebrew & Frank Howard were almost akin to exotic foods one had heard of buy never sampled simply because they were merely names in black & white in newspapaers who you rarely got to see otherwise. And this doesn't even include the vast majority of the country whose lone exposure was Game of the Week plus maybe some far-off radio signal.