 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Sad day in baseball
vurbil
All the things you mentioned have existed for a long time.
July 18, 2010 at 05:31AM View BBCode
The reason for the decline of baseball in America is the fact that 90% of the teams have zero chance of winning a championship. Baseball has only become bigger in places like New York, Boston, and Philadelphia but has declined as a whole. Hmmmm....All the things you mentioned have existed for a long time.
dirtdevil
July 18, 2010 at 09:21AM View BBCode
i'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. go back and take a look at who was winning championships during baseball's 'golden age' and tell me again that the success of the yankees kills baseball.
Hamilton2
July 18, 2010 at 05:51PM View BBCode
Compared to baseball, all of the other major American sports leagues are mere infants. You can't seriously deny that the popularity of football since the mid 80's and the steroid issues in baseball from the late 80's to now didn't have a huge impact on the loss of popularity for MLB.
shawnwoods15
July 18, 2010 at 06:43PM View BBCode
Couldn't we just say, dynasties = good for sports, Yankees = dynasty, George = built Yankees to what it is today, George = good for sports?
happy
So ill give you some stats, these stats stand in stark contrast to everything youve said.
[url=http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/haupert.mlb]here is some stats[/url] that essentially say that AFTER BEING ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, baseball ticket prices have gone from 13.01 to 17.85, and total TV revenue in millions of dollars has gone from 123 to 1310, making baseball on TV ten times bigger than it was in the 60s.
Baseball has become more popular and garners more revenue, period.
You call others misleading, but you arent misleading, your position is straightforward and wrong.
[Edited on 7-19-2010 by happy]
July 19, 2010 at 12:23PM View BBCode
Vurbil, your arguments are based off of nothing, and they are ridiculously dumb.So ill give you some stats, these stats stand in stark contrast to everything youve said.
[url=http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/haupert.mlb]here is some stats[/url] that essentially say that AFTER BEING ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, baseball ticket prices have gone from 13.01 to 17.85, and total TV revenue in millions of dollars has gone from 123 to 1310, making baseball on TV ten times bigger than it was in the 60s.
Baseball has become more popular and garners more revenue, period.
You call others misleading, but you arent misleading, your position is straightforward and wrong.
[Edited on 7-19-2010 by happy]
happy
Ok, do you just generally have a problem with anyone who is convicted of a felony, or do you have a problem with what he did?
(i know the answer you will give, and I know the truth. You will say you have a problem with what he did, but in fact you couldnt give two rats asses about what he did, its just something you can throw into your argument)
actually, he wasnt self important, he was in fact important. People dont like when important people act important. They often improperly call this "self important", because they dont want to admit that this person is in fact more important than themselves, and can thus act as such.
Really? You act like youve met the guy. There are a lot of people who have actually met him in real honest to god life who disagree with you.
no he wasnt. He just made it seem that way.
A book by a sports writer about steinbrenner. The reviews basically say "he spends the entire time talking about the late 80s and early 90s, and talks about his public persona and caricature and never actually discusses anything that shows his true personality." Way to go, you trusted the media persona to judge a persons personality.
thats great. Has nothing to do with the conversation, but good for you. *pats on head*
Oh I see where you are going with this. Well thats not really true at all.
And even if this were a good way to describe how he acted in general, these were his employees you are talking about. Not his girlfriend, not his wife, and not his family.
July 19, 2010 at 12:47PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Kingturtle
sorry, the dude was a convicted felon,
Ok, do you just generally have a problem with anyone who is convicted of a felony, or do you have a problem with what he did?
(i know the answer you will give, and I know the truth. You will say you have a problem with what he did, but in fact you couldnt give two rats asses about what he did, its just something you can throw into your argument)
overly self-important,
actually, he wasnt self important, he was in fact important. People dont like when important people act important. They often improperly call this "self important", because they dont want to admit that this person is in fact more important than themselves, and can thus act as such.
callous, and lacked genuine empathy.
Really? You act like youve met the guy. There are a lot of people who have actually met him in real honest to god life who disagree with you.
He was as impulsive as a toddler.
no he wasnt. He just made it seem that way.
read The Last Lion of Baseball.
A book by a sports writer about steinbrenner. The reviews basically say "he spends the entire time talking about the late 80s and early 90s, and talks about his public persona and caricature and never actually discusses anything that shows his true personality." Way to go, you trusted the media persona to judge a persons personality.
if you had a girlfriend who cheated on you and insulted you, but then the next day gave a million to your favorite charity and bought you a house, would you stand for it? not me.
thats great. Has nothing to do with the conversation, but good for you. *pats on head*
that's what being involved with steinbrenner was like. he wasn't called THE BOSS for nothing.
Oh I see where you are going with this. Well thats not really true at all.
And even if this were a good way to describe how he acted in general, these were his employees you are talking about. Not his girlfriend, not his wife, and not his family.
happy
Rockefeller donated his money from his very first paycheck.
Also: copywrited his very own wrestling move, the rock-a-feller.
July 19, 2010 at 12:49PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Hamilton2
Additionally, your comparison to Rockefeller is a bit off base, since Rockefeller himself acknowledged many of his early shortcomings when he turned philanthropic and was intentionally attempting to make up for some of the wrongs of his early life by his generosity.
Rockefeller donated his money from his very first paycheck.
Also: copywrited his very own wrestling move, the rock-a-feller.
happy
July 19, 2010 at 02:23PM View BBCode
You dont make billions of dollars without a game plan, Craggles.
whiskybear
Steinbrenner gave the game a villain, and people like to root against teams nearly as much as they like to root for them. I don't like his methods, but that's kind of the point.
July 19, 2010 at 02:47PM View BBCode
"Great to see ya, Tommy!"Steinbrenner gave the game a villain, and people like to root against teams nearly as much as they like to root for them. I don't like his methods, but that's kind of the point.
happy
July 19, 2010 at 02:55PM View BBCode
no. he is the single biggest reason for the non existant decline of baseball.
Craiggles
July 19, 2010 at 03:06PM View BBCode
You don't have to take the opposite extremist position, you know.
whiskybear
(Tommy, you can't just look at inflation-adjusted ticket sales and TV revenue and say baseball is rising. For one, the media is so much more massive than it was even 20 years ago, and a greater premium is placed on broadcasting rights and etc. You need to consider other indicators, like attendance and TV ratings, and then examine them relative to the other major sports leagues. Your problem is you're always so quick to just cite some dollar signs and move on. I'm not on board with the idea that Steinbrenner ruined baseball. But it's also pretty clear that baseball's popularity relative to, say, the NFL, is on the decline.)
"Great to see ya, Tommy!"
July 19, 2010 at 03:14PM View BBCode
George Steinbrenner invented steroids, true story.(Tommy, you can't just look at inflation-adjusted ticket sales and TV revenue and say baseball is rising. For one, the media is so much more massive than it was even 20 years ago, and a greater premium is placed on broadcasting rights and etc. You need to consider other indicators, like attendance and TV ratings, and then examine them relative to the other major sports leagues. Your problem is you're always so quick to just cite some dollar signs and move on. I'm not on board with the idea that Steinbrenner ruined baseball. But it's also pretty clear that baseball's popularity relative to, say, the NFL, is on the decline.)
"Great to see ya, Tommy!"
happy
TV ratings, I dont know. Didnt find it
You say im quick to point to some money and move on, I think increased revenue as compared to inflation is a very VERY strong indicator that baseball is not on the decline, because *as a business* it is getting *bigger*, because it is *making more money than before*.
You disagree with me? Give me evidence to the contrary. Ive given evidence, you have provided none, nor has vurbil.
(also, I dont know why baseball would be considered relative to other sports leagues anyway. if the NFL is rising and making money faster than baseball, that doesnt mean that Baseball is on the decline, it means that baseball is rising slower. But thats sort of just an aside)
[Edited on 7-19-2010 by happy]
July 19, 2010 at 03:28PM View BBCode
[url=http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/AllTimeAttendance.htm]ok, here is ticket sales by decade[/url]. the 2000s beat the 90s, which of course beat the 80s, which beat the 70s, which beat the 60s. So Steinbrenner and decline, still not seeing a correlation.TV ratings, I dont know. Didnt find it
You say im quick to point to some money and move on, I think increased revenue as compared to inflation is a very VERY strong indicator that baseball is not on the decline, because *as a business* it is getting *bigger*, because it is *making more money than before*.
You disagree with me? Give me evidence to the contrary. Ive given evidence, you have provided none, nor has vurbil.
(also, I dont know why baseball would be considered relative to other sports leagues anyway. if the NFL is rising and making money faster than baseball, that doesnt mean that Baseball is on the decline, it means that baseball is rising slower. But thats sort of just an aside)
[Edited on 7-19-2010 by happy]
Craiggles
July 19, 2010 at 03:34PM View BBCode
Jesus Christ Tom, did you really not take into account the fact that the total population of the United States is also something that goes up decade after decade?
happy
(srsly?)
((look at the numbers. Probably a relative decline only during the 2000s, when all our men are off in iraq and our economy is in the shitter. But probably an overall gain in relative revenue.))
July 19, 2010 at 03:38PM View BBCode
Yes, of course. DO I NEED TO PROVIDE A CENSUS REPORT FOR YOU???!!!(srsly?)
((look at the numbers. Probably a relative decline only during the 2000s, when all our men are off in iraq and our economy is in the shitter. But probably an overall gain in relative revenue.))
Craiggles
The popularity of baseball has clearly declined over the years, as its been forced out of its position at the top of the American sports heap by football. Here, since it was so hard for you to find, [url=http://www.baseball-almanac.com/ws/wstv.shtml]World Series television ratings[/url].
July 19, 2010 at 03:47PM View BBCode
This is just immensely poor. You've taken one stupid position and turned it onto its head into another stupid position.The popularity of baseball has clearly declined over the years, as its been forced out of its position at the top of the American sports heap by football. Here, since it was so hard for you to find, [url=http://www.baseball-almanac.com/ws/wstv.shtml]World Series television ratings[/url].
happy
July 19, 2010 at 04:00PM View BBCode
I found world series, I would imagine that the 2430 regular season games would matter more than just the final 7.
Craiggles
July 19, 2010 at 04:08PM View BBCode
Yeah well, if you find that data you can let me know. Do you think it's not going to bear out the same thing, that TV ratings are down for baseball in general? This of course goes along with TV ratings being down for everything across the board, which is why World Series data is useful, because it keeps some of the other variables relatively (more) constant.
thatrogue
Additionally, the single game, winner-take-all format of the Super Bowl creates a much more compelling made-for-TV event in today's environment than does a multi-game series.
As I said before, if the World Series was a single game, ace-vs.-ace event, I imagine it would have some impressive ratings too.
July 19, 2010 at 04:22PM View BBCode
Using World Series TV ratings as a barometer for popularity creates some unfair comparisons. The sheer volume of options available on TV today, relative to prior decades, creates an issue that is nearly impossible to overcome.Additionally, the single game, winner-take-all format of the Super Bowl creates a much more compelling made-for-TV event in today's environment than does a multi-game series.
As I said before, if the World Series was a single game, ace-vs.-ace event, I imagine it would have some impressive ratings too.
thatrogue
July 19, 2010 at 04:25PM View BBCode
(I don't have time to look it up, but combining the overall attendance numbers with some inflation-adjusted concession sales numbers would give a better measure of the relative popularity of baseball. As it stands, a 10% increase in overall attendance during the decade is a pretty positive start.)