Twins/MLB Apathy

[Otto von Ballpark]

Just a general warning: politics will be considered off-topic here.

If you want to discuss politics further, please avail yourself of the clubs at Twins Daily: https://twinsdaily.com/clubs/

[Mike Sixel]

2 minutes ago, In My La Z boy said:

Wow. Having a bad day? And you blame my children for our grandchildren's love of machines, and every other child's love of machines? I blame the machines. Youth engagement dramatically down - I simply posited an answer. Culture. It's just different now. Take a couple minutes to look up the viewership for the NBA - down 13% this year - playoff ratings down 50% from 6 years ago. NFL similar - people care much less in general about major sports in both public opinion polls, and in viewership. I posited another answer for this - politics. Your response to me was quite correct to score points on this site. Nice work. 

We can't disagree with me being out to score points, I see......

All tv viewing is down, sport is down less (IIRC, or it was a few years ago, might be different now, I haven't looked in 2-3 years). And, sports are still signing tv deals that break the previous deal's records.....so so far, they aren't suffering at all. Teams are also being sold for more and more every time one sells, so unless we think billionaires don't know much about business, it is likely not the case that sports are in trouble (yet).

[Number3]

18 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

We can't disagree with me being out to score points, I see......

All tv viewing is down, sport is down less (IIRC, or it was a few years ago, might be different now, I haven't looked in 2-3 years). And, sports are still signing tv deals that break the previous deal's records.....so so far, they aren't suffering at all. Teams are also being sold for more and more every time one sells, so unless we think billionaires don't know much about business, it is likely not the case that sports are in trouble (yet).

No question TV still loves sports and maybe more. First, they don't have to produce anything; just broadcast it. Second, as you said, the rest of what is on TV is pure garbage for the most part and producing a popular program is very expensive so even non sports TV is more and more so called reality TV which is where the real garbage is vs the fictional garbage. One more thing and I will end my rambling, for any game all you have to do is pick up your phone and see how it is progressing or what the final score was. If you really feel like you might have missed something you can go on line and watch the highlights which are all you pay to see in the first place.

[bean5302]

Tell me... when's the last time you saw college or high school baseball get big coverage? Hockey, football, basketball absolutely. All three of those sports are considered edgy and cool. Baseball? Not at all. Have you ever talked with teens girls about baseball players? LOL, apathy x100. So if you're a teen guy looking to impress the girls, you're not choosing baseball as your sport, that's for sure. Yes, it's shallow, but you're talking about kids learning their way to adulthood and being cool and popular matters. The fact baseball is often played outside of the school year doesn't help, either.

Aside from its image problem when it comes to teenagers who are soon going to be college kids, baseball has also traditionally marketed towards 5 year olds instead of 15 year olds; a policy I would believe is probably more effective at creating players than fans. Then there is the blackout policy which drives younger fans away from the sport in droves.

IMO, baseball fan experiences should be aimed towards teenagers and young adults rather than kindergartners to help solve its image problem. The blackout policy needs to be abolished (yes, it's a need, not a should) and game speed and action still needs to be addressed. The length of time between pitches is still way too long and I see the pitch clock as the easiest way to address it. The official MLB rule is 12 seconds with nobody on base and a 20 second clock is too slow. I'd start with 18 seconds and re-evaluate after the season. I'd also make a HBP = 2 bases. Getting pitchers to throw strikes speeds up the game and having pitchers be able to control where the ball goes is key to that.

In 2015, a beer at Target Field was 4th highest in MLB at $7.50 for 20oz. Today, a 16oz beer is $13.00. This does not attract younger adults. While I've certainly been subjected to the obnoxious drunk group of college friends at the game, I've been equally accosted by the screaming 2 year old and 5 year old superfan. Every fan group comes with its plusses and minuses.

This is getting long. The basics of the story is MLB has a ton of issues and a huge amount of work to do if it's going to be prospering 10 years from now.

[Number3]

In the mean time, to keep this about the Twins, they did win the shortened series against Cleveland and now on to the Central marathon which continues through most of July and starts with the White Sox tonight. By July 21 we will know about the 2021 season in pretty certain terms.

[wsnydes]

24 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

Tell me... when's the last time you saw college or high school baseball get big coverage? Hockey, football, basketball absolutely. All three of those sports are considered edgy and cool. Baseball? Not at all. Have you ever talked with teens girls about baseball players? LOL, apathy x100. So if you're a teen guy looking to impress the girls, you're not choosing baseball as your sport, that's for sure. Yes, it's shallow, but you're talking about kids learning their way to adulthood and being cool and popular matters. The fact baseball is often played outside of the school year doesn't help, either.

 

I'm not sure how you define "big coverage", but the college and little league World Series are broadcast nationally every year.  On ESPN, if I'm remembering correctly.

[TheLeviathan]

1 hour ago, Number3 said:

No question TV still loves sports and maybe more. First, they don't have to produce anything; just broadcast it. Second, as you said, the rest of what is on TV is pure garbage for the most part and producing a popular program is very expensive so even non sports TV is more and more so called reality TV which is where the real garbage is vs the fictional garbage. One more thing and I will end my rambling, for any game all you have to do is pick up your phone and see how it is progressing or what the final score was. If you really feel like you might have missed something you can go on line and watch the highlights which are all you pay to see in the first place.

This is precisely how young people engage with sports.  That and video games.  

[Mike Sixel]

2 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

This is precisely how young people engage with sports.  That and video games.  

I think you added "young people" unnecessarily there.....it is how I do it (mostly)

[TheLeviathan]

4 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

I think you added "young people" unnecessarily there.....it is how I do it (mostly)

Heh, well I meant a disproportionate number of young people do so relative to other age groups.  (It's how I do it too and as my kids will tell you, I'm anciently approaching my 40s)

[TheBoofIsLoose]

I work with kids and this is anecdotal, but the increased level of commitments has kept kids from playing. We talked about it in class one day and there were a number of kids who felt that it was all about winning and not enough about playing to have fun from way too early an age. Combine that with the increased length of seasons and the prevalence of coaches now requiring players to do off-season work and it can become too much for a kid. If they want to work a job for some spending cash or if they need to help out around the house it hampers them and makes it a lose-lose proposition. Kids shouldn't have to give up a majority of their free time to play sports.

I don't have hard evidence for this, but I also think increased parental involvement hasn't helped matters and seems to have pushed kids further into win at all cost mode, while simultaneously undermining coaches. 

[howeda7]

2 hours ago, wsnydes said:

I'm not sure how you define "big coverage", but the college and little league World Series are broadcast nationally every year.  On ESPN, if I'm remembering correctly.

It doesn't seem like it if you live in MN, but college baseball gets way more coverage nationally than college hockey. It's not close. I'm not saying either of them are hugely popular, but college baseball is often on ESPN/2 etc. and is a fairly big deal in SEC country if there's no Spring Football game that day.

[mac098]

2 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Tell me... when's the last time you saw college or high school baseball get big coverage? Hockey, football, basketball absolutely. All three of those sports are considered edgy and cool. Baseball? Not at all. Have you ever talked with teens girls about baseball players? LOL, apathy x100. So if you're a teen guy looking to impress the girls, you're not choosing baseball as your sport, that's for sure. Yes, it's shallow, but you're talking about kids learning their way to adulthood and being cool and popular matters. The fact baseball is often played outside of the school year doesn't help, either.

Aside from its image problem when it comes to teenagers who are soon going to be college kids, baseball has also traditionally marketed towards 5 year olds instead of 15 year olds; a policy I would believe is probably more effective at creating players than fans. Then there is the blackout policy which drives younger fans away from the sport in droves.

IMO, baseball fan experiences should be aimed towards teenagers and young adults rather than kindergartners to help solve its image problem. The blackout policy needs to be abolished (yes, it's a need, not a should) and game speed and action still needs to be addressed. The length of time between pitches is still way too long and I see the pitch clock as the easiest way to address it. The official MLB rule is 12 seconds with nobody on base and a 20 second clock is too slow. I'd start with 18 seconds and re-evaluate after the season. I'd also make a HBP = 2 bases. Getting pitchers to throw strikes speeds up the game and having pitchers be able to control where the ball goes is key to that.

In 2015, a beer at Target Field was 4th highest in MLB at $7.50 for 20oz. Today, a 16oz beer is $13.00. This does not attract younger adults. While I've certainly been subjected to the obnoxious drunk group of college friends at the game, I've been equally accosted by the screaming 2 year old and 5 year old superfan. Every fan group comes with its plusses and minuses.

This is getting long. The basics of the story is MLB has a ton of issues and a huge amount of work to do if it's going to be prospering 10 years from now.

I too believe it is a little bit about National Coverage. With all the ball games being stuck behind a paywall, it limits who is able to watch the games. I use YouTube TV and cannot watch Twins baseball. I get Dodgers/Yankees/Padres/Atlanta/Washington/ETC...because those are "big" market teams. Not to mention those teams are successful (well, more than the Twins anyways) and that Bally Sports is refusing to come to agreements with TV providers. And I can hardly listen to the games because 1) Radio Stations around my area just don't care to play the game 2) Sirius and MLB force you to upgrade you package 3) I wanna see what happens in the game. 

I also believe that the reason baseball isn't as popular is because people are too caught up in "violent" sports such as football and basketball. Activities where there are more contact. Our society is moving more sedentary than it has ever been, which means our children are more heavy/overweight/obese than they have ever been. This comes down to what sports are more available to the kids. For example, as a heavier-set child, you are more than likely to join football and like it because it's a sport that is built for you. 

[wsnydes]

46 minutes ago, howeda7 said:

It doesn't seem like it if you live in MN, but college baseball gets way more coverage nationally than college hockey. It's not close. I'm not saying either of them are hugely popular, but college baseball is often on ESPN/2 etc. and is a fairly big deal in SEC country if there's no Spring Football game that day.

Definitely agree.  I see college baseball on tv all of the time.  Hockey is a relative niche sport.  

That's why I was curious as to how he defined "big coverage".  I was looking for how he defined it because of exactly what you mention.

[wsnydes]

1 hour ago, TheLeviathan said:

Heh, well I meant a disproportionate number of young people do so relative to other age groups.  (It's how I do it too and as my kids will tell you, I'm anciently approaching my 40s)

Thanks for making me feel old at 40...?

[bean5302]

I don't think national coverage is the issue. It's coverage at a relatively local, statewide scale. I wasn't necessarily talking about a single big event, either. Just the day to day. Sorry, I really didn't make that clear at all.

While TheLeviathan would argue in favor of making games more attractive to families and children, I'd argue specifically against the very same thing, haha.

In any case, one thing is for certain. Baseball has a huge image problem with teens and young adults and that doesn't bode well for the future of the league.

[wsnydes]

24 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

I don't think national coverage is the issue. It's coverage at a relatively local, statewide scale. I wasn't necessarily talking about a single big event, either. Just the day to day. Sorry, I really didn't make that clear at all.

While TheLeviathan would argue in favor of making games more attractive to families and children, I'd argue specifically against the very same thing, haha.

In any case, one thing is for certain. Baseball has a huge image problem with teens and young adults and that doesn't bode well for the future of the league.

I think I follow you here.  And it makes sense.  My experience must differ from yours though, because I do see the coverage more locally.  But that doesn't mean that it's that way everywhere.

I am curious though.  If you don't make games and the gameday experience more interesting to younger generations, how would you work to grow the game?  Passing the experience down from generation to generation is about the easiest marketing ploy there is.  It's obviously not working right now, for a variety of reasons as stated in this thread, but that doesn't mean that it can't help in the future.

[Craig Arko]

If all professional sports in the U.S. collapsed tomorrow due to their own greed and short-sightedness, I would be amongst those who did not shed a tear. They can also take the NCAA run college level farm systems along with them.

[wsnydes]

24 minutes ago, Craig Arko said:

If all professional sports in the U.S. collapsed tomorrow due to their own greed and short-sightedness, I would be amongst those who did not shed a tear. They can also take the NCAA run college level farm systems along with them.

If the pandemic taught me anything, it's that I could live just fine without sports.  

[RpR]

I still have an attraction to baseball but unless they get rid of the asinine man on second and 7 inning double headers  it will get less and less.

Money ball and computer stats ball is another item ruining the game, it is a business  but selling the players like cattle is pathetic.

[TheLeviathan]

14 hours ago, bean5302 said:

I don't think national coverage is the issue. It's coverage at a relatively local, statewide scale. I wasn't necessarily talking about a single big event, either. Just the day to day. Sorry, I really didn't make that clear at all.

While TheLeviathan would argue in favor of making games more attractive to families and children, I'd argue specifically against the very same thing, haha.

In any case, one thing is for certain. Baseball has a huge image problem with teens and young adults and that doesn't bode well for the future of the league.

I can get behind your ideas!  Reach out to someone under 50 and white somehow.  Anything is better than the increasing speed of death currently.

[Major League Ready]

Adjusting to all the cultural and technological changes in America is a monumental task for all businesses.  Of course, it’s been great for many businesses.  However, a business like baseball steep in traditions that evolved in a much different time has significant challenges.  

MLB actually did a great job promoting the sport and growing revenue.  We had great attendance and TV revenues were grew rapidly.  Did they do enough to encourage the next generations.  IDK without significant study of what has been done across the country.  We have the Twins Caravan / Family sections / donations of gloves and even ball parks.  Players are active in their communities.  It’s tough to fight cultural changes but I am sure there are other strategies that could help.

I know the problem is not 7 inning double headers or having a runner on 2nd to start the 10th as was suggested here.  Those things were adapted because the game takes too long.  There are numerous other things being tested right now.  We could complain the changes are two slow or we could commend their effort to test these changes before implementation.  They will find ways to reduce the length of games and perhaps more importantly put more action back in the game.  Those changes just are not things that will be done without considerable due diligence.  I would be more inclined to complain if it was not so obvious that due diligence is taking place.

One other observation  ....  There has been a lot of interesting discussions about the challenges faced in growing the game to this point and retaining interest in the game.  Yet, when there is a discussion about who gets the revenue, many here are very firm in their position the success of the game is all about the players.  Every business needs great employees to thrive but leadership, adaptation, and marketing, are essential too.  
 

[Brock Beauchamp]

10 hours ago, RpR said:

it is a business but selling the players like cattle is pathetic.

This has been the MO of baseball since day one, basically. It used to be even worse, as players didn't have *any* control over where they worked or if they were traded.

[Linus]

I think baseball has a huge problem. The game now is plain boring. When a routine grounder to short qualifies as action you got problems.   Analytics are so powerful but I’m afraid the by product is an unwatchable game that will have zero interest to young people. Perhaps changes can be made that analytics will support a different approach. 

[Major League Ready]

10 hours ago, RpR said:

I still have an attraction to baseball but unless they get rid of the asinine man on second and 7 inning double headers  it will get less and less.

Money ball and computer stats ball is another item ruining the game, it is a business  but selling the players like cattle is pathetic.

What is your solution?  Should the league prohibit trades?  Are they bad for the sport?  People move all the time for opportunities that pay far less and don't have even remotely the upside potential.  Being traded is hardly a devastating hardship especially when the average salary is $4M. 

I keep coming back to one number ... $3.17M / annually.  That's what the average household income would be in America if household income had grown at the same rate as baseball salaries over the past 50 years.  MLB baseball are among the most fortunate employees / contractors in the world.  Who here would avoid a profession that paid millions/year because it required frequent moves? 

[Original_JB]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

I know the problem is not 7 inning double headers or having a runner on 2nd to start the 10th as was suggested here.  Those things were adapted because the game takes too long.  There are numerous other things being tested right now.  We could complain the changes are two slow or we could commend their effort to test these changes before implementation.  They will find ways to reduce the length of games and perhaps more importantly put more action back in the game.  Those changes just are not things that will be done without considerable due diligence.  I would be more inclined to complain if it was not so obvious that due diligence is taking place.

 

I disagree. MLB has been systematically "boiling the frog" for a long time, and the 7 inning, man-on-2nd nonsense are just the latest incremental temperature increases. You say they were adopted because the games take too long, and that they used due diligence. I don't accept fundamental changes to the game where there are a multitude of other things that could be done.

1. Pitch Clock

2. No leaving the Batter's Box during an AB

3. 3 'on field' warmup pitches for relievers, not 8

4. Cut down the time between innings.

There, that was an easy 4 things that would have palpable results and DOES NOT ALTER THE GAME.

[TheLeviathan]

I don't think I ever heard the term "boiling the frog" but it is perfect.

[Original_JB]

1 minute ago, TheLeviathan said:

I don't think I ever heard the term "boiling the frog" but it is perfect.

• The boiling frog is a fable describing a frog being slowly boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is put suddenly into boiling water, it will jump out, but if the frog is put in tepid water which is then brought to a boil slowly, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death.

[TheLeviathan]

Just now, Original_JB said:

• The boiling frog is a fable describing a frog being slowly boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is put suddenly into boiling water, it will jump out, but if the frog is put in tepid water which is then brought to a boil slowly, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death.

I looked it up and appreciated it for sure!  Thanks!

[Major League Ready]

11 minutes ago, Original_JB said:

I disagree. MLB has been systematically "boiling the frog" for a long time, and the 7 inning, man-on-2nd nonsense are just the latest incremental temperature increases. You say they were adopted because the games take too long, and that they used due diligence. I don't accept fundamental changes to the game where there are a multitude of other things that could be done.

1. Pitch Clock

2. No leaving the Batter's Box during an AB

3. 3 'on field' warmup pitches for relievers, not 8

4. Cut down the time between innings.

There, that was an easy 4 things that would have palpable results and DOES NOT ALTER THE GAME.

1&2 as well as 3&4 are basically dealing with the same time allotments.  It does not matter what batters do if you have a pitch clock and reducing warm-up pitches reduces time between innings.  If not, it's a meaningless change.  Having said this, I agree with doing these things.  I do not agree players would see them as not altering the game.  I also think these are minor influences in comparison to;

1) Pitching dominance / balls not being put into play and hits nullified by shifts.  

2) The very nature of the game taking time between "plays" not appealing to a younger generation.  Even the older generation like me records the game and watches it in an hour.

3) Interest switching to Soccer / Lacrosse / other

4) Shifts taking away hits.  Average is at a historical low by a considerable margin.

5) Restrictions on access to free Broadcasts.

6) Cost - The league may have priced themselves out of a significant segment of fans.

[Original_JB]

10 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

1&2 as well as 3&4 are basically dealing with the same time allotments.  It does not matter what batters do if you have a pitch clock and reducing warm-up pitches reduces time between innings.  If not, it's a meaningless change.  Having said this, I agree with doing these things.  I do not agree players would see them as not altering the game.  I also think these are minor influences in comparison to;

1) Pitching dominance / balls not being put into play and hits nullified by shifts.  

2) The very nature of the game taking time between "plays" not appealing to a younger generation.  Even the older generation like me records the game and watches it in an hour.

3) Interest switching to Soccer / Lacrosse / other

4) Shifts taking away hits.  Average is at a historical low by a considerable margin.

5) Restrictions on access to free Broadcasts.

6) Cost - The league may have priced themselves out of a significant segment of fans.

Well, yes, 1&2 go together, but at least it puts the onus on both teams. 3&4 between innings yes, but I'm thinking more about the mid-inning pitching changes. Regardless, they would all shorten things up a bit. As to the players griping about it, IMO, the 1st guy who complains that he accidentally tossed his bat into the stands because he couldn't readjust his glove velcro between pitches would be met with the same disdain that Tyler Glasnow did complaining about his lack of grip causing his injury; players would see that people aren't tolerant of that nonsense.