NY Times: How Popular Is Baseball, Really?

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

 

Major League Baseball and its fans have raised alarms in recent years over a perceived decline in the popularity of baseball in the United States. Falling attendance, poor World Series ratings and a lack of nationally recognized stars are often cited as evidence of the sport’s impending collapse.

 

However, if viewed through the lens of total tickets sold and local television ratings, a somewhat more optimistic picture emerges: one of strong, local fan bases — and a national following that could have a lot more room to grow.

 

Link:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/22/sports/baseball/baseball-popularity-world-series.html

[Vanimal46]

Thanks for sharing! I wish the NY Times went a little bit deeper in regards to local TV ratings. By that, I mean what demographic watches baseball the most? IIRC from past articles, the largest demographic that watches baseball is 50+ years old.

 

I forget how localized games are on TV... We've had discussions before about trying to market MLB stars better than they do. It's alarming in the article that only 43% of Americans have heard of Mike Trout. Maybe MLB should consider not relying so much on the local TV model and broadcast more national TV games to show off their young stars.

 

What baseball has over other sports as a fan is not being required to watch at full attention all the time. On numerous occasions the game is on my TV or the radio as background noise while I do other things in the house. It's comforting to know on a random Wednesday night in the summer when nothing else is worth watching on TV you can turn on a baseball game.

 

And, of course, the beauty of this sport is sifting through the massive amount of data available at our finger tips. Stats have always been the back bone of the sport, and now more than ever we have so many ways to analyze the stats.

[twinssporto]

To echo Vanimal, baseball really is a great and unique sport.  It's a thinking persons game and so many decisions go into each pitch, at bat, etc. It's still the only sport where the defense controls the ball.  As my kids have gotten older (and they did play little league) they enjoy the game more and more each year.  

 

Maybe baseball is just enjoyed more by older and wiser people...I was going to say smarter people but then I thought of the Yankee fans. Just throwing' a little shade their way.  I'm still on medication and daily counseling after the ALDS.

[jkcarew]

Thanks for posting. I buy into the 'local' nature of baseball following...and it probably is heavily influenced by the local/regional nature of the media and game broadcasts...certainly relative to the NFL, but even relative to the NBA.

 

Agree with Van that there's probably an underlying demographic factor(s) at play. I have two boys, both played baseball through high school (one in college)...I coached them for years...it was a family activity (as was football in the fall). They are likely to buy tickets to Twins games a few times per year, and they 'follow' the team...but there's no way they would watch/stream a game, let alone pay for the right to do so. Yet, they would be considered that generation's 'baseball fans'. Meanwhile, both...and their sister...could name 100 NFL players beyond those that play for the Vikings.

 

As with almost anything else...things will change with media/technology/society...but, I still believe it comes down to what kids do during their youth. Need to keep them playing.

[Vanimal46]

As with almost anything else...things will change with media/technology/society...but, I still believe it comes down to what kids do during their youth. Need to keep them playing.

Great post. To address your last paragraph, one thing MLB could do right now with technology is cutting back or eliminating their ridiculous blackout rules on the MLB.tv app...

 

I'm 29 and haven't had a traditional cable subscription in 8+ years. If you're a cord cutter and live in certain areas of the country, let's say Iowa, you could be blacked out from Twins, Cubs, White Sox, Royals, and Cardinals games on MLB.tv.

 

Granted, these days you can buy YouTube TV, Sling, Hulu, etc. that comes with regional sports channels... But still, give people access to your product if you want them to watch it.

[raindog]

That's encouraging. Also was curious about the participation in youth baseball compared to football, and found this: http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/27448703/youth-baseball-participation-rise

 

 

"Between 2013 and 2018, the number of U.S. kids playing baseball and softball combined increased by nearly 3 million...The number of participants in youth football -- including tackle, touch and flag -- was down by nearly 1.7 million over the same stretch, and soccer participation dropped by nearly 900,000."

 

Good news for the future of baseball. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

Nice discussion, everyone!

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I forget how localized games are on TV... We've had discussions before about trying to market MLB stars better than they do. It's alarming in the article that only 43% of Americans have heard of Mike Trout. Maybe MLB should consider not relying so much on the local TV model and broadcast more national TV games to show off their young stars.

Easier said than done. Trout comes up 4.5 times a game. He draws more walks than extra base hits, and only about one XBH every two games. He averages almost 1 strikeout per game. No guarantee he comes up with men on base, and on the other side of the ball, he's not guaranteed any meaningful defensive opportunities either. How do you show that off in national TV games?

 

Compare that to Lebron James, who's basically guaranteed a pile of points, dunks, rebounds, and defensive plays every game. Or Tom Brady, who's guaranteed 30 passes, many of the big/dramatic. Baseball's just a different sport.

[kenbuddha]

 

If you're a cord cutter and live in certain areas of the country, let's say Iowa, you could be blacked out from Twins, Cubs, White Sox, Royals, and Cardinals games on MLB.tv.

Even more ridiculous, if you live in Hawaii all California games are "local" and therefore, blacked out. Yeah, I'm just gonna jump in the car and run over for a game... It's actually better than it was, at one point both Seattle and Arizona were also "local".

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Great post. To address your last paragraph, one thing MLB could do right now with technology is cutting back or eliminating their ridiculous blackout rules on the MLB.tv app...

I'm 29 and haven't had a traditional cable subscription in 8+ years. If you're a cord cutter and live in certain areas of the country, let's say Iowa, you could be blacked out from Twins, Cubs, White Sox, Royals, and Cardinals games on MLB.tv.

Granted, these days you can buy YouTube TV, Sling, Hulu, etc. that comes with regional sports channels... But still, give people access to your product if you want them to watch it.

I don't think watching live is all that important, though. Hence why they're not that concerned with poor national TV ratings.

 

MLB gets billions every year from networks to keep those blackouts in place, more than they could ever hope to get from MLB.TV subscriptions.

 

That money, plus ballpark experience, plus social media highlight sharing -- that appears to be the formula right now. And it's probably not a bad one for their business.

 

I will agree they could stand to clean up a few of the "blackout black holes" like Iowa -- it probably wouldn't impact TV revenue all that much to make a couple teams drop their claim on that territory. Although the flip side is, they probably wouldn't gain that much revenue either -- MLB.TV isn't really set up or priced to be any kind of moneymaker, it's really just a promotional tool, it seems.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

What baseball has over other sports as a fan is not being required to watch at full attention all the time. On numerous occasions the game is on my TV or the radio as background noise while I do other things in the house. It's comforting to know on a random Wednesday night in the summer when nothing else is worth watching on TV you can turn on a baseball game.

 

 

I have two boys, both played baseball through high school (one in college)...I coached them for years...it was a family activity (as was football in the fall). They are likely to buy tickets to Twins games a few times per year, and they 'follow' the team...but there's no way they would watch/stream a game, let alone pay for the right to do so. Yet, they would be considered that generation's 'baseball fans'. Meanwhile, both...and their sister...could name 100 NFL players beyond those that play for the Vikings.

 

Worth remembering that historically, baseball has never been sport where a lot of young, active people actually watched it closely on a regular basis. It's always been more of a "follow" sport, with occasional check-ins and ballpark experiences. It would be hard to manage otherwise, with 162 games a year! So I don't see these patterns as problematic or anything baseball has to overcome relative to other pro sports. They just have to keep doing what they're doing well.

[jkcarew]

Worth remembering that historically, baseball has never been sport where a lot of young, active people actually watched it closely on a regular basis. It's always been more of a "follow" sport, with occasional check-ins and ballpark experiences. It would be hard to manage otherwise, with 162 games a year! So I don't see these patterns as problematic or anything baseball has to overcome relative to other pro sports. They just have to keep doing what they're doing well.

I’ll buy some of that. But, overall, I’m not buying the narrative that baseball is ‘fine’ and ‘things aren’t as bad as they seem’. I’m a believer of the narrative that MLB is vulnerable, needs to try harder, and be more aggressive with changes that will make the game more attractive to younger generations.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I’ll buy some of that. But, overall, I’m not buying the narrative that baseball is ‘fine’ and ‘things aren’t as bad as they seem’. I’m a believer of the narrative that MLB is vulnerable, needs to try harder, and be more aggressive with changes that will make the game more attractive to younger generations.

I'm sure there are always areas where they can improve, but what exactly do you suggest they do to be less "vulnerable"?

 

Most of the common suggestions -- relax MLB.TV blackout rules, make ballparks more family friendly -- while they would be nice, personally, I don't think they'd honestly make much difference in that regard. Would your sons be appreciably more likely to watch/attend Twins games in those case?

 

FWIW, the Twins have contributed to a number of youth baseball fields in the area, and they purchase new hats and gloves for my kid's teams every year. And for the older "younger generations", virtually every major league city has a new ballpark which serves as a very profitable beer garden.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

It's alarming in the article that only 43% of Americans have heard of Mike Trout. 

On that subject -- it might be a quirk of Trout being on a mediocre team with virtually zero postseason presence in his career. I wonder how many people had heard of, say, David Ortiz or Derek Jeter while they were recently active?

 

Also, Trout's only played for 8 years. Brady's been around for 18, and LeBron 16.

 

More importantly, Brady has played in 9 of the last 18 Super Bowls. Lebron has played in 9 of the last 13 NBA finals (!). Do we really want an MLB team to dominate that much?

 

Again, I think the structure of the sport (superstar dominated, less parity) is contributing more to this phenomenon than differences in each league's national TV strategy.

[Mike Sixel]

Had the world series on last night.... My wife looked up from her book and asked how anyone can watch baseball, it's so boring!

 

I pretty much can't watch any game in any sport start to finish anymore, so maybe this comes from there, but she's right. There is a huge amount of time nothing happens. Which for some is the beauty, but how many of you really watch all the time the game is on? And you're the serious fans.....

[Vanimal46]

 

On that subject -- it might be a quirk of Trout being on a mediocre team with virtually zero postseason presence in his career. I wonder how many people had heard of, say, David Ortiz or Derek Jeter while they were recently active?

 

Also, Trout's only played for 8 years. Brady's been around for 18, and LeBron 16.

 

More importantly, Brady has played in 9 of the last 18 Super Bowls. Lebron has played in 9 of the last 13 NBA finals (!). Do we really want an MLB team to dominate that much?

 

Again, I think the structure of the sport (superstar dominated, less parity) is contributing more to this phenomenon than differences in each league's national TV strategy.

 

Sure, it could be a quirk that he's on a mediocre team and plays his games on pacific time when people on the east coast are sleeping. Mike Trout should be the most well known star in baseball because he is the best player on the planet the point I think in the article. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think even casual sports fans out there should know a couple of star baseball players... I haven't watched a single second of basketball that wasn't on a TV at the bar, and I can name 7-8 stars in that league.

 

Who is the most marketed baseball star today? Bryce Harper? Aaron Judge? Justin Verlander? 

 

Overall I fit in somewhere between your argument and jkcarew. I don't think everything is fine and nothing should be fixed. I also don't think the MLB is vulnerable and at risk of dying off anytime soon. The MLB could and should do more to market their stars nationally. They could cater a little more to the cord cutters out there in blackout areas. They should create a little more parity in the league by sharing revenue and potentially creating a formal salary cap. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Sure, it could be a quirk that he's on a mediocre team and plays his games on pacific time when people on the east coast are sleeping. Mike Trout should be the most well known star in baseball because he is the best player on the planet the point I think in the article. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think even casual sports fans out there should know a couple of star baseball players... I haven't watched a single second of basketball that wasn't on a TV at the bar, and I can name 7-8 stars in that league.

 

Who is the most marketed baseball star today? Bryce Harper? Aaron Judge? Justin Verlander? 

 

Overall I fit in somewhere between your argument and jkcarew. I don't think everything is fine and nothing should be fixed. I also don't think the MLB is vulnerable and at risk of dying off anytime soon. The MLB could and should do more to market their stars nationally. They could cater a little more to the cord cutters out there in blackout areas. They should create a little more parity in the league by sharing revenue and potentially creating a formal salary cap. 

It's not a quirk of time zones -- it's a quirk that Trout's the best but he has been invisible in the postseason. Kirk Cousins has arguably been more visible in the postseason than Mike Trout. And I'm not sure there's ever been a world where a non-postseason player has ever had the wide name recognition that Brady or LeBron have today, no matter how good their regular seasons.

 

How do you want MLB to "market their stars nationally" in the case of Trout? Put more Angels regular season games on national TV? That's not going to do anything, because even the best baseball stars aren't likely to have much impact over a few games (see my post above with Trout's per-game averages). Change revenue sharing and salary cap to get Trout in the postseason? The Angels aren't receiving revenue sharing, and have ranked 4th-11th in opening day payroll every year of Trout's career. Blackout rules have nothing to do with it either -- the whole world can already watch Angels games for a pittance (less than $1 a day with MLB.TV), with the exception of central California and southern Nevada.

 

If you want MLB stars to be as recognizable as NFL or NBA stars, where the same teams/stars are in the finals every year, that's an argument for *less* parity, not more. Get Trout on the Yankees somehow and he'll probably get to host SNL like Derek Jeter. Otherwise, go back in time and change the fundamental rules of the game (Trout bats every inning) and structure of the league/schedule (one game a week, Sunday afternoons -- be there!).

 

I'd say the relative recognition of stars has little to do with the actual health/future of the game. It makes baseball different than other sports/leagues, and different than its past, but not necessarily worse..

 

More parity and relaxed blackout rules could be good things, but those are really personal preferences. Same with robo-umps (which I am warming up to!). Everybody tries to make their personal preferences into MLB imperatives, but it's just not so -- as much as I would like to see a return of the 2:30 average time of game.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Had the world series on last night.... My wife looked up from her book and asked how anyone can watch baseball, it's so boring!

I pretty much can't watch any game in any sport start to finish anymore, so maybe this comes from there, but she's right. There is a huge amount of time nothing happens. Which for some is the beauty, but how many of you really watch all the time the game is on? And you're the serious fans.....

You're not alone. Outside of the Super Bowl, I either consume games in the background, or I timeshift (i.e. DVR). Which is why I don't gamethread much here, unfortunately.

 

Fortunately for the leagues (and networks), I don't think their business model really requires those higher levels of attention.

[Sam Morley]

The takeaway quote from the article for me is, "A lot of people are going to a lot of baseball games."

[bustedstuff88]

If I could get OTA broadcasts of MLB games like football gets every Sunday, Monday and Thursday (And saturday for college footbal) Id never turn the TV off. 

[biggentleben]

The RedZone channel has made NFL football digestable again, something it hasn't been for me for a while. I LOVE football, but if you haven't noticed the major difference between college and pro football in the pace of the game over the last decade or so, you've not been paying attention. Heck, my girls flat out call football boring and request baseball instead.

[jkcarew]

 

I'm sure there are always areas where they can improve, but what exactly do you suggest they do to be less "vulnerable"?

 

Most of the common suggestions -- relax MLB.TV blackout rules, make ballparks more family friendly -- while they would be nice, personally, I don't think they'd honestly make much difference in that regard. Would your sons be appreciably more likely to watch/attend Twins games in those case?

 

FWIW, the Twins have contributed to a number of youth baseball fields in the area, and they purchase new hats and gloves for my kid's teams every year. And for the older "younger generations", virtually every major league city has a new ballpark which serves as a very profitable beer garden.

I think things like relaxing blackout rules would help...if for no other reason than MLB should be doing everything possible with marketing and media to reach young audiences...playing the long game...even if it means taking short-term hits to some revenue. With regard to the stadium experience, speaking from the perspective of my 20-something kids (one who is married with small kid)...the primary reason they go to the games (2-3 times per year) is because they LIKE the experience provided at the ball-park...it's doubtful they invest the time to attend a game otherwise.

 

Primarily, the things that need to be done IMO are... one, get more kids playing; and two, speed up the game, in terms of duration and also balls-in-play...even the number of games. I think MLB needs to be aggressive with changes to the game itself, in this regard. Meanwhile, participation is important. The efforts in urban communities were smart/needed...but participation in the burbs is at risk, as well. (Incidentally, this includes girls playing baseball and/or softball, as well. That, combined with figuring out what else marketing-wise or game-wise would grow the female audience. Huge opportunity here, I think.)

 

In short, the vulnerability goes deeper than what a specific organization like the Twins can solve, IMO. It's just opinion. Based on anecdotal observations and a pretty small amount of reading/research. The death of baseball isn't imminent, but, I think we'll know withing the next 10 years if the current trends/challenges were transitory or fundamental (or maybe addressed and 'fixed'). And it's one of those situations where I'd be more than fine with having bought into the wrong narrative.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I think things like relaxing blackout rules would help...if for no other reason than MLB should be doing everything possible with marketing and media to reach young audiences...playing the long game...even if it means taking short-term hits to some revenue. With regard to the stadium experience, speaking from the perspective of my 20-something kids (one who is married with small kid)...the primary reason they go to the games (2-3 times per year) is because they LIKE the experience provided at the ball-park...it's doubtful they invest the time to attend a game otherwise.

Primarily, the things that need to be done IMO are... one, get more kids playing; and two, speed up the game, in terms of duration and also balls-in-play...even the number of games. I think MLB needs to be aggressive with changes to the game itself, in this regard. Meanwhile, participation is important. The efforts in urban communities were smart/needed...but participation in the burbs is at risk, as well. (Incidentally, this includes girls playing baseball and/or softball, as well. That, combined with figuring out what else marketing-wise or game-wise would grow the female audience. Huge opportunity here, I think.)

I love the idea of fewer blackouts, and shorter games / better pace, but again, I think it's a personal preference, and its importance to the "health & future of the sport" gets overrated. Very few people have ever devoted their attention to a lot of baseball games on TV. When your audience is primarily "following", and always has been -- checking scores, going to a handful of games at the ballpark, watching highlights, checking in here and there in a pennant race and the postseason -- there isn't much you can do with a 162 game broadcast schedule and two-and-a-half hour (minimum) game times that is going to move the needle much.

 

That's not to say MLB should do nothing, of course, but they are doing little things -- games on Facebook / YouTube, the Twins moved some start times up to 6:40, etc.

 

As far as encouraging youth, it's a crowded field for kid's activities. All the major sports are probably losing some kids to soccer, lacrosse, etc. I think that's more because of a changing world than any specific problem with MLB's strategies, especially relative to other pro sports leagues.

[wabene]

The differences listed are the things I appreciate about baseball. The thinking nature of the game. The long saga of a season. Which ties into the local angle as you get to know your team over time. It's glaring when you watch a national broadcast and it's clear the broadcast crew really doesn't know your team. National coverage of sports, like watching Sports Center, is superficial, sounds bites, splashy moments. I do watch most Vikings games and football can be exciting (especially if the refs would just keep the flags in their pockets), but give me baseball and vive la diference!

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I agree. I once heard a radio sports commentator say the Football is a sport you watch, Baseball is a sport you follow. That goes with Baseball being a sport where for many or most games all you watch is the highlight package and read about the game. The games just take too long to find the time to watch on TV unless you're a little older and have the time. 

 

I do think the one thing that Baseball needs to work on is finding a way to keep interest in cities where the local team is not in the playoffs or World Series. I'm very curious about the ratings for a Houston/Washington World Series. Neither team has a national following. Frankly, I could care less who wins. I'm on to football and the NBA (and a little hockey). I think the relative lack of interest the sporting public has about Baseball's ultimate championship series is the one problem they need to work on.   

I think Washington has a "National" following. (Pun intended!)

 

I think your first paragraph is right -- and mostly nullifies the concern on your second paragraph. Which is the point of the source article here. National ratings really don't matter much. As long as local interest is strong, the sport is healthy, and enough of that local interest seems to carry over to the postseason to keep it viable for TV deals and such.

[Otto von Ballpark]

If you stop and think about it, baseball is a really, really weird sport, compared to most others.

 

9 players have to take turns at bat for each team.

 

The defense controls the ball!

 

And it's played basically every day, for 6 months.

 

By it's very nature, it's largely anti-superstar, anti-spectacle. I think there's an expectation that it should achieve those things, equal to other sports, just because it did long ago, back when it was basically the only organized game on the block, and was well-suited to the media (or lack thereof) available at the time.

 

But really, we just need to re-calibrate our expectations.

[Otto von Ballpark]

And on time of game -- I would love shorter games, and a quicker pace. But it's worth remembering the average time of game was still 2:30 as far back as 1954.

 

Yes, it's jumped by 20-30 minutes since the 1980s, and I'd prefer to roll that back -- but there has really never been a time when the average time of game would make frequent game viewership meaningfully more palatable. (Unless perhaps you want to get rid of stadium lighting and night games! )

[Tomj14]

It might help, if you had a couple of the best players plastered all over TV doing commercials. Like Aaron Rogers and Patrick Mohomey.

Stuff like chics dig the long ball or Griffey's pepsi commercial.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

It might help, if you had a couple of the best players plastered all over TV doing commercials. Like Aaron Rogers and Patrick Mohomey.

Stuff like chics dig the long ball or Griffey's pepsi commercial.

You mean like this?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2b8R6P7WBU

[Tomj14]

 

You mean like this?

 

 

Exactly