Mr. WEO Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 6 hours ago, row_33 said: Si, Baseball fields are more plentiful there than in US cities That can't be true
shrader Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 16 hours ago, row_33 said: too expensive and time consuming It's a seasonal game too. Kids in the south (or those in the Caribbean) can play it year-round, but the northerners are reduced to spring/summer. Kids are going to develop their talents much more quickly in a sport they can play year-round. 1
row_33 Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: That can't be true how many baseball diamonds are available for pickup games in New York City or Chicago? the game is learned by playing all day long, can't do this in the US or Canada
KD in CA Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 Since when do you need an official diamond to play baseball/stickball/wiffleball/etc? We played in the middle of the street as kids. First was the rock in the Holland’s yard, third was the Miller’s mailbox. In college we played in the front yard of the frat house. The homerun fence in left was the roof, so it was close but high, just like Fenway.
row_33 Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 11 minutes ago, KD in CA said: Since when do you need an official diamond to play baseball/stickball/wiffleball/etc? We played in the middle of the street as kids. First was the rock in the Holland’s yard, third was the Miller’s mailbox. In college we played in the front yard of the frat house. The homerun fence in left was the roof, so it was close but high, just like Fenway. how many stickball legends since Willie Mays? what is the argument you and weo are pretending to make here, that baseball is a game that all inner city children can freely play at their will? it's not funny anymore... the game is dying off worse than the NFL.... barely anyone wants to play it and the median age of watching a game is collecting social security
Mark80 Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 (edited) 14 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: MLB is a silly league. Paying Trout and Machado and Bryce Harper over a billion dollars.....so their teams can still suck!! No one's watching Isn't half the league from impoverished countries in Central America and the Caribbean? Yeah, they have over $10B in revenues which grows every year because no one is watching....right....The most popular teams in 3 of our biggest cities are baseball teams...New York, Chicago, and Boston (they'll prove they are really a baseball town again once Brady is gone). And your lack of knowledge here is glaring, i'm sorry to say. The Padres will be one of the best teams in the league 2 or 3 years from now with their absolutely stacked minor league system. Club controlled contracts for first 3 years, then another 3 years of arbitration which is significantly lower salaries than Free Agency. The Phillies are going to be battling for supremacy this season with the addition of Harper, Realmuto, and Segura on offense, and bullpen additions. The Angels, well, you got me there. They are not going to be good any time soon really, their farm stinks, Pujols is grossly overpaid, and Ohtani won't pitch at all this year. But he proved last year that he is 100% legit and a future superstar offensively and as a pitcher. The league is filled with young superstars with charisma. The old ways of showing no emotion or you get beaned are dying down. People are bat flipping, celebrating, having fun. It's improved a lot the last few years. Now, if they can just figure out a way to cut the game time down to 2.5-3 hours at most, they will really make strides. They are working on it, but still a few years off. Edited March 20, 2019 by Mark80
row_33 Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 28 minutes ago, Mark80 said: Yeah, they have over $10B in revenues which grows every year because no one is watching....right....The most popular teams in 3 of our biggest cities are baseball teams...New York, Chicago, and Boston (they'll prove they are really a baseball town again once Brady is gone). And your lack of knowledge here is glaring, i'm sorry to say. The Padres will be one of the best teams in the league 2 or 3 years from now with their absolutely stacked minor league system. Club controlled contracts for first 3 years, then another 3 years of arbitration which is significantly lower salaries than Free Agency. The Phillies are going to be battling for supremacy this season with the addition of Harper, Realmuto, and Segura on offense, and bullpen additions. The Angels, well, you got me there. They are not going to be good any time soon really, their farm stinks, Pujols is grossly overpaid, and Ohtani won't pitch at all this year. But he proved last year that he is 100% legit and a future superstar offensively and as a pitcher. The league is filled with young superstars with charisma. The old ways of showing no emotion or you get beaned are dying down. People are bat flipping, celebrating, having fun. It's improved a lot the last few years. Now, if they can just figure out a way to cut the game time down to 2.5-3 hours at most, they will really make strides. They are working on it, but still a few years off. "watching" can mean whatever you chose to define it, there is barely a TV watching audience that is actually sitting there paying remotely close attention for hours at a time... the median age of watching a regular season game was into the 60s?? a few years ago, nobody is WATCHING the games. you go to games and most people are staring at their phones, not a concern about the score or what inning it is i still love the game and will tape 2-3 each night and fast forward to watch all the real action and cut out the 75% when nothing is happening at all
row_33 Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 11 minutes ago, Helpmenow said: What would Aaron and mays be worth. an academic study recently concluded LeBron is grossly underpaid, which makes sense on a purely economic and astringent study. but you can only give an athlete so much....
Mr. WEO Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 27 minutes ago, row_33 said: how many stickball legends since Willie Mays? what is the argument you and weo are pretending to make here, that baseball is a game that all inner city children can freely play at their will? it's not funny anymore... the game is dying off worse than the NFL.... barely anyone wants to play it and the median age of watching a game is collecting social security The argument I was countering is that can't afford to gear up for baseball or find a place to play. There are countless parks in every major city. And low income families are limited in geography to NYC and Chicago. 8 minutes ago, Mark80 said: Yeah, they have over $10B in revenues which grows every year because no one is watching....right....The most popular teams in 3 of our biggest cities are baseball teams...New York, Chicago, and Boston. And your lack of knowledge here is glaring, i'm sorry to say. The Padres will be one of the best teams in the league 2 or 3 years from now with their absolutely stacked minor league system. Club controlled contracts for first 3 years, then another 3 years of arbitration which is significantly lower salaries than Free Agency. The Phillies are going to be battling for supremacy this season with the addition of Harper, Realmuto, and Segura on offense, and bullpen additions. The Angels, well, you got me there. They are not going to be good any time soon really, their farm stinks, Pujols is grossly overpaid, and Ohtani won't pitch at all this year. But he proved last year that he is 100% legit and a future superstar offensively and as a pitcher. The league is filled with young superstars with charisma. The old ways of showing no emotion or you get beaned are dying down. People are bat flipping, celebrating, having fun. It's improved a lot the last few years. Now, if they can just figure out a way to cut the game time down to 2.5-3 hours at most, they will really make strides. They are working on it, but still a few years off. MLB teams make money from their owned cable sport networks bundled into local cable providers channel packages. Attendance was down in 2018. TV revenue was flat. They made their extra money through sponsorship deals. Prime time ratings are down. Big cities? Raitngs for 2018 have only Boston and the Cubs in the top 5. White Sox are dead last. Yankees aren't even in the top 10. Mets are 22. LA (anther "big city"), both the Dodgers and the Angels are bottom 6. No one in SD watches the Padres, despite miracle times right around the corner. More TVs are tuned into Mariners games in Seattle than Angels games. As many people are watching the Indians in Cleveland than those in the entire megalopolis of LA are watching the Dodgers. The WS was a rating disaster. No one is watching. If SD (we hear this yearly) and Philly are primed for greatness because of all of the cheap help on the way, why on earth would they each blow so much money on a single guy who isn't going to bring them that much further? Makes no sense, other than for merchandise sales. Paying Mike Trout all that dough until he's 39 years old??--He'll be long gone by then. The Mets will be paying Bobby Bonilla 1.2 million a year until 2035! LOL....baseball is funny/sad.
row_33 Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 I have never minded paying the immortals of the game top $$$ i have always objected to annually paying dozens of nobodies ghastly contracts worth 2/3 of those handed to the immortals of the game. contracts that nobody on earth felt they were worth it, the NBA every few years, due to total stupidity, has to try to burrow out with a new set of rules and exemptions.
Mark80 Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: MLB teams make money from their owned cable sport networks bundled into local cable providers channel packages. Attendance was down in 2018. TV revenue was flat. They made their extra money through sponsorship deals. Prime time ratings are down. Big cities? Raitngs for 2018 have only Boston and the Cubs in the top 5. White Sox are dead last. Yankees aren't even in the top 10. Mets are 22. LA (anther "big city"), both the Dodgers and the Angels are bottom 6. No one in SD watches the Padres, despite miracle times right around the corner. More TVs are tuned into Mariners games in Seattle than Angels games. As many people are watching the Indians in Cleveland than those in the entire megalopolis of LA are watching the Dodgers. The WS was a rating disaster. No one is watching. If SD (we hear this yearly) and Philly are primed for greatness because of all of the cheap help on the way, why on earth would they each blow so much money on a single guy who isn't going to bring them that much further? Makes no sense, other than for merchandise sales. Paying Mike Trout all that dough until he's 39 years old??--He'll be long gone by then. The Mets will be paying Bobby Bonilla 1.2 million a year until 2035! LOL....baseball is funny/sad. So, cable companies / networks are in the habit of giving away multi-billion dollar deals for games that no one will watch. And since no one is watching, advertisers won't pay any money to run commercials or sponsor part of the broadcast? That's typically the MO of these enormous corporations, waste billions of dollars....right... Ask the Royals and the Astros about how their stacked minor league systems worked out for them. The answer, World Series rings. Took the Royals a little longer so they didn't have the staying power, but the Astros are set for years to come. You spend the money on a single guy because you aren't spending nearly as much at other positions while the rest of your team is young and you can afford it. Comparing Mike Trout to Bobby Bonilla? Really? Come on man. You're better than that. Yankees / Red Sox / Cubs have fans all over the world paying for MLB TV streaming of games. Not just about local ratings. LA doesn't watch any sports except college football. How many times has the NFL abandoned that city? It was left off my list intentionally. Again, $10B in revenues for something that no one cares about or watches and is the laughing stock of professional sports in North America...right... Is it football, no. But it's nothing to just dismiss either, still more than the NBA. Edited March 20, 2019 by Mark80
row_33 Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 1 hour ago, Mark80 said: So, cable companies / networks are in the habit of giving away multi-billion dollar deals for games that no one will watch. And since no one is watching, advertisers won't pay any money to run commercials or sponsor part of the broadcast? That's typically the MO of these enormous corporations, waste billions of dollars....right... Ask the Royals and the Astros about how their stacked minor league systems worked out for them. The answer, World Series rings. Took the Royals a little longer so they didn't have the staying power, but the Astros are set for years to come. You spend the money on a single guy because you aren't spending nearly as much at other positions while the rest of your team is young and you can afford it. Comparing Mike Trout to Bobby Bonilla? Really? Come on man. You're better than that. Yankees / Red Sox / Cubs have fans all over the world paying for MLB TV streaming of games. Not just about local ratings. LA doesn't watch any sports except college football. How many times has the NFL abandoned that city? It was left off my list intentionally. Again, $10B in revenues for something that no one cares about or watches and is the laughing stock of professional sports in North America...right... Is it football, no. But it's nothing to just dismiss either, still more than the NBA. the idea is to vacuum up all revenue sources for a game, hoping the model stays the same as it has for 50 years, it is shifting away more and more each day as well the hope is that franchise value will skyrocket just the same as it has the last 50 years, which is not going to be possible i'm curious why you feel energized and angry over this topic... slow work week? 1
Mr. WEO Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 1 hour ago, Mark80 said: So, cable companies / networks are in the habit of giving away multi-billion dollar deals for games that no one will watch. And since no one is watching, advertisers won't pay any money to run commercials or sponsor part of the broadcast? That's typically the MO of these enormous corporations, waste billions of dollars....right... Ask the Royals and the Astros about how their stacked minor league systems worked out for them. The answer, World Series rings. Took the Royals a little longer so they didn't have the staying power, but the Astros are set for years to come. You spend the money on a single guy because you aren't spending nearly as much at other positions while the rest of your team is young and you can afford it. Comparing Mike Trout to Bobby Bonilla? Really? Come on man. You're better than that. Yankees / Red Sox / Cubs have fans all over the world paying for MLB TV streaming of games. Not just about local ratings. LA doesn't watch any sports except college football. How many times has the NFL abandoned that city? It was left off my list intentionally. Again, $10B in revenues for something that no one cares about or watches and is the laughing stock of professional sports in North America...right... Is it football, no. But it's nothing to just dismiss either, still more than the NBA. Those are the ratings results. So, yes, that's what the cable companies are paying for. But, since it's bundled into the carriers offerings, there are far far more people paying for the Dodger channel than watching the channel's games---and every one of them pays the cable company every month, so, no one is losing money on this arrangement except all of those cable customers. I'm not arguing against stacked farm systems. I'm arguing the opposite: if you get "World Series rings" without crazy money All Stars on your roster, what is the point of paying them all that money? No, obviously I wasn't comparing Bonilla to Trout---you're smarter than that. Clearly I was highlighting the absurdity of the way MLB does business. Again, the 10 billion is mainly from big cable network deals and sponsorships, not attendance or gate receipts. When the cable companies start losing money on a package because the local MLB channel is too expensive or cord cutters dump the whole bundle, the next cable/MLB team contract will drop. Until then, for the most part, for the team and the cable company, it's free money. Found money. Why leave out LA? Because it argues against your point ( and for mine). Sure it's a sports apathetic town, yet the Dodgers signed an 8.5 billion dollar 25 year cable deal. See? Billions are paid out, and no one is watching. No one is watching. Look at any poll. Gallup has asked the same question since 1937. Favorite sport to watch? 37% all in the US polled said football. Far and away the highest %. Next was basketball at 11%, then baseball at 9%. Kids don't like it (7%), 18-35 age it came in at 6%. It's showcase event (WS) is ignored by the population. Paying a guy tens of millions for years after he's done. Silly. Won't bring you "rings" either.
Mark80 Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 13 minutes ago, row_33 said: the idea is to vacuum up all revenue sources for a game, hoping the model stays the same as it has for 50 years, it is shifting away more and more each day as well the hope is that franchise value will skyrocket just the same as it has the last 50 years, which is not going to be possible i'm curious why you feel energized and angry over this topic... slow work week? Not angry at all. It's just a dumb narrative to suggest there no one cares or watches baseball when it continues to grow and gain revenues year after year. I'm curious why people feel so energized and angry over an athlete getting a contract like this. As if it impacts their lives whatsoever. Dude is the best in the world at something that millions upon millions of people are interested in. It's not his fault people are willing to spend crazy amounts of money on tix and merchandise. It's better he gets the money than the owners, IMO. 1
Mr. WEO Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 4 minutes ago, Mark80 said: Not angry at all. It's just a dumb narrative to suggest there no one cares or watches baseball when it continues to grow and gain revenues year after year. I'm curious why people feel so energized and angry over an athlete getting a contract like this. As if it impacts their lives whatsoever. Dude is the best in the world at something that millions upon millions of people are interested in. It's not his fault people are willing to spend crazy amounts of money on tix and merchandise. It's better he gets the money than the owners, IMO. I'm not angry. I'm laughing (mirth--opposite of anger). Again (and again), it's not making money because more people are watching it.
Mark80 Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: Those are the ratings results. So, yes, that's what the cable companies are paying for. But, since it's bundled into the carriers offerings, there are far far more people paying for the Dodger channel than watching the channel's games---and every one of them pays the cable company every month, so, no one is losing money on this arrangement except all of those cable customers. I'm not arguing against stacked farm systems. I'm arguing the opposite: if you get "World Series rings" without crazy money All Stars on your roster, what is the point of paying them all that money? No, obviously I wasn't comparing Bonilla to Trout---you're smarter than that. Clearly I was highlighting the absurdity of the way MLB does business. Again, the 10 billion is mainly from big cable network deals and sponsorships, not attendance or gate receipts. When the cable companies start losing money on a package because the local MLB channel is too expensive or cord cutters dump the whole bundle, the next cable/MLB team contract will drop. Until then, for the most part, for the team and the cable company, it's free money. Found money. Why leave out LA? Because it argues against your point ( and for mine). Sure it's a sports apathetic town, yet the Dodgers signed an 8.5 billion dollar 25 year cable deal. See? Billions are paid out, and no one is watching. No one is watching. Look at any poll. Gallup has asked the same question since 1937. Favorite sport to watch? 37% all in the US polled said football. Far and away the highest %. Next was basketball at 11%, then baseball at 9%. Kids don't like it (7%), 18-35 age it came in at 6%. It's showcase event (WS) is ignored by the population. Paying a guy tens of millions for years after he's done. Silly. Won't bring you "rings" either. Just because it may not be the FAVORITE sport to watch, doesn't mean they aren't watching other sports as well. My favorite sport to watch is football too. But I also enjoy watching hockey, baseball, soccer, and playoff basketball. NBA Finals ratings are very similar to baseball WS ratings and have followed a very similar trajectory peaking in the late 80s/early 90s. No one ever says anything about basketball not being watched or cared about. Its just funny to me that baseball gets such a bad rap for no reason. We all know football is king. But NBA and MLB are very similar ratings and baseball kills them in attendance per game as well as total attendance (which isn't really fair with 2x more games, but still very true). Edited March 20, 2019 by Mark80
Mr. WEO Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 Just now, Mark80 said: Just because it may not be the FAVORITE sport to watch, doesn't mean they aren't watching other sports as well. My favorite sport to watch is football too. But I also enjoy watching hockey, baseball, soccer, and playoff basketball. NBA final ratings are very similar to baseball and have followed a very similar trajectory peaking in the late 80s/early 90s. No one ever says anything about basketball not being watched or cared about. Its just funny to me that baseball gets such a bad rap for no reason. We all know football is king. But NBA and MLB are very similar ratings and baseball kills them in attendance per game as well as total attendance (which isn't really fair with 2x more games, but still very true). Yes, it "isn't fair" (in fact, not even worth mentioning) that one sport that has venues that hold 2-3 times as many people and plays twice as many games per year as two other sports, "kills them in total attendance". Sheesh...really?? Lebron James is the most famous and recognized athlete in the country. He's brought his teams championships. Despite a legendary career, he will not earn "Mike Trout money" until 202-21. How many people in this country would be able to identify Trout ("MLB's best player")in a picture? Or what team he recently played for? A small fraction of those who know the best basketball player in the league. Hey it's great that MLB is a game where one individual (non pitcher), despite very limited overall team success impact, can get all the team's money...because it's just lying around and the owner feels the need to blow it like that. Must be nice.
Mark80 Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: Yes, it "isn't fair" (in fact, not even worth mentioning) that one sport that has venues that hold 2-3 times as many people and plays twice as many games per year as two other sports, "kills them in total attendance". Sheesh...really?? Lebron James is the most famous and recognized athlete in the country. He's brought his teams championships. Despite a legendary career, he will not earn "Mike Trout money" until 202-21. How many people in this country would be able to identify Trout ("MLB's best player")in a picture? Or what team he recently played for? A small fraction of those who know the best basketball player in the league. Hey it's great that MLB is a game where one individual (non pitcher), despite very limited overall team success impact, can get all the team's money...because it's just lying around and the owner feels the need to blow it like that. Must be nice. Hum...yet only 1/3 of NBA teams are selling out those extremely small venues and only 5 MLB teams have lower avg than the highest NBA team. Weird. Lebron makes more per year today than Trout will average on his deal. If an NBA team could, today, sign a 26 year old LeBron James to a 12 year contract with no salary cap restrictions or player max restrictions that the NBA enforces and the MLB does not, it would be way more than $425M in my opinion. Comparing his landscape when he was 26 with the NBA CBA rules compared to what athletes are paid today in a non-restriction salary cap is apples to oranges. I agree his recognition blows Trouts away. But someone like Jeter? Maybe not. This was fun. But I'm done for now. Peace. Edited March 20, 2019 by Mark80
Mr. WEO Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 45 minutes ago, Mark80 said: Hum...yet only 1/3 of NBA teams are selling out those extremely small venues and only 5 MLB teams have lower avg than the highest NBA team. Weird. Lebron makes more per year today than Trout will average on his deal. If an NBA team could, today, sign a 26 year old LeBron James to a 12 year contract with no salary cap restrictions or player max restrictions that the NBA enforces and the MLB does not, it would be way more than $425M in my opinion. Comparing his landscape when he was 26 with the NBA CBA rules compared to what athletes are paid today in a non-restriction salary cap is apples to oranges. I agree his recognition blows Trouts away. But someone like Jeter? Maybe not. This was fun. But I'm done for now. Peace. Average NBA stadium: 19,ooo seats. Largest: 20,200. Average MLB park: 42,6000. Largest: 56,000 (1 are over 45,000). So that means 5 MLB teams average less than 20,000 per game (stadium less than half full). 10 NBA teams sold out the 2017-18 season. 19 teams were at least 90% sold. Crappy teams (Knicks, Lakers, Bulls, Magic), sold at least 95% of their seats at home. Zero MLB teams sold out the season. 2 teams were above 95%. 4 above 90%. 14 were below 60%. of the 12 best teams last year, only 2 were over 90%. 6 were under 80%. 3 were under 60%. No one's watching.
Recommended Posts