Is the Point of MLB Teams to Win, or Entertain?

[Trov]

I was thinking about this after watching a video of a minor league team that does all kinds of crazy extra things to entertain.  This topic has come up some with recent rule changes coming up to limit shifts, increase base stealing, and generally to increase hits on balls in play as well. Some rules also for pace of play like pitch clocks are being used in minors.  These rules create many debates on if they should be imposed or not.  

Some of those debates are about strategy of defense, or changing the way the game is played.  There has been much debate over the years about strike outs up, hits down, home runs, and the three true outcomes.  There was an article about Arraez and his ability to get hits and how he is fun to watch, but then we talk about how guys like Buxton who hit barely over .200 with a ton of strike outs, but hits for mainly HR and extra base hits are just as valuable to a line up for winning.  

Now my question is not exactly an either or, as winning generally can be entertaining, and losing is less so.  For example last night I stopped watching around 8th inning, the game was not entertaining.  Personally, I watch baseball, and sports generally for entertainment.  Of course I want my team to win, but if the game was at least entertaining I am not as upset when we lose, but if the game was boring I am more upset when we lose, and more ehhh when we win. 

Now, not just in baseball but other sports, the coaches job is to win, and the players jobs are to win, normally because winning brings in fans, at least for the home fans.  However, that is not always the case, look at the Rays who win year in and year out, but still do not get full parks.  Either way, the coaches and players are generally judged on their ability to win.  Some players fans enjoy because they are entertaining, the La Tortuga in years past.  

However, for each win for one team, means a loss for another, so the solution to getting fans to watch games, no matter the sport, is not just winning games.  So I would conclude the point is to entertain, because if fans are not entertained (cue Gladiator Russel Crow) then fans will not watch, even if a team is winning.  That being said, are you just entertained by a team winning, or what entertains you about the game?

There are concerns from the MLB that viewership is down for several reasons.  One, younger fans have too short attention span to sit through a 3.5 hour game where less balls are put in play, and less action in the game, with sometimes over a minute between pitches to a hitter.  As the game changes over the years, less innings from starters, less caring about strike outs from hitters, less stolen base attempts or hit and runs, some feel the entertainment has gone down, because it is basically a home run derby every game with a bunch of strike outs in between.

Does the teams have an obligation to gives us entertainment?  Should managers be expected to leave in starters because we paid to watch a certain player pitch?  Should manager be expected to play a guy like Buxton in CF more often for us, or should we be fine with letting him get rested.  It is regular players will get rest, but that used to not be the case. 

In the NBA teams were getting attacked for resting healthy players to allow them to be ready for other games.  Fans pay good money to watch certain players in NBA, but is it the same for MLB?  Does anyone go to the games to see a certain pitcher or hitter, or does it not matter to you as a fan? 

I am just looking to see what entertains people and how should we look at it, if we should demand teams play them more.   

[DJL44]

The league needs to change the rules to make sure that winning baseball is entertaining baseball. That starts with a pitch clock.

[chpettit19]

This is the weird balance between owners and their teams. The owner's/league's job is to entertain. They're the business side of baseball and they can't run an entertainment business without being entertaining. The FO/coach's/player's jobs are to win. That's why the league has to make rules to up the entertainment value that their own employees are lowering. FO/coaches do things the way they think is the most efficient/effective for winning. Don't care how entertaining it is. They're just out to do whatever they can within the set of rules the league gives them (most of the time) to win as much as possible. It's the leagues job to make rules that promote entertainment. And what is entertaining changes over time so they must adapt. Which they've been very slow to do.

As for what entertains me: winning definitely is more fun/entertaining than losing! But I also want to watch good baseball. I'd take a well played, close loss over a horribly played win. Hits, balls in play, runners moving, fielders fielding, and pitchers working quickly is entertaining to me. I don't even need a ton of offense/runs as long as there are balls in play and action. Spectacular fielding plays are a treat to watch. Was just telling my buddies the other day that elite infield defense is my favorite thing to watch in baseball. The smoothness of their hands and body movements to make plays look so easy is art in motion and very entertaining to me. Home runs are fun and impressive. Clutch strikeouts, or even big strikeout games, are fun and impressive. A well earned walk where the hitter lays off close pitches is fun and impressive. When that's all you get it's not fun or impressive. Wild, from your heals, hit it 500 feet swings with 2 strikes that lead to an uncompetitive strikeout are not fun.

I think the league is finally trying to bring some entertainment back to the game and that's good. I'm not a huge fan of the fact that it means they have to reduce some of the strategy and team's abilities to innovate, though. I think if you're going to force the game into a more traditional box you need to even the financial playing field along with it. Reducing shifts, forcing pitchers to face 3 batters, and things like this reduce the options low budget teams have to find creative ways to gain an edge. They'll still do it because they have to. But the more the league narrows the way the game is played team to team the more they need to narrow the ability of teams to spend to get players that can best succeed in that narrower game.

[Trov]

A question to add, some players in recent years have started some celebrations, such as watching the big HR go out, bat flips, or saying things to opposing team.  This has led to some fans loving the celebrations, but others saying it is classless and violates "unwritten" rules of celebrating and to "act like you have been there before", whatever that means. 

Personally, I find the calibrations entertaining.  I find the players and fans that are against them have poor complaints.  If a team hits a walk of hit, the whole dug out comes out to celebrate, even in low meaning games, but no one gives the players crap for that.  Maybe if players did a little more entertaining celebrations more fans would watch.  NFL changed their celebrations rule and I find it more entertaining.  These are adults, we do not need to worry if their feelings will get hurt, if you do not want to see a celebration, do not let the opposing team do something to celebrate. 

[SwainZag]

15 minutes ago, Trov said:

A question to add, some players in recent years have started some celebrations, such as watching the big HR go out, bat flips, or saying things to opposing team.  This has led to some fans loving the celebrations, but others saying it is classless and violates "unwritten" rules of celebrating and to "act like you have been there before", whatever that means. 

Personally, I find the calibrations entertaining.  I find the players and fans that are against them have poor complaints.  If a team hits a walk of hit, the whole dug out comes out to celebrate, even in low meaning games, but no one gives the players crap for that.  Maybe if players did a little more entertaining celebrations more fans would watch.  NFL changed their celebrations rule and I find it more entertaining.  These are adults, we do not need to worry if their feelings will get hurt, if you do not want to see a celebration, do not let the opposing team do something to celebrate. 

I like seeing the emotion.  I get some guys will always be classy and keep their heads down regardless of the moment, which I am a-okay with.  But seeing Buxton celebrate his big plays is just great IMO.  You can certainly celebrate something without showing someone else up.  

[bean5302]

15 minutes ago, Trov said:

A question to add, some players in recent years have started some celebrations, such as watching the big HR go out, bat flips, or saying things to opposing team.  This has led to some fans loving the celebrations, but others saying it is classless and violates "unwritten" rules of celebrating and to "act like you have been there before", whatever that means. 

Personally, I find the calibrations entertaining.  I find the players and fans that are against them have poor complaints.  If a team hits a walk of hit, the whole dug out comes out to celebrate, even in low meaning games, but no one gives the players crap for that.  Maybe if players did a little more entertaining celebrations more fans would watch.  NFL changed their celebrations rule and I find it more entertaining.  These are adults, we do not need to worry if their feelings will get hurt, if you do not want to see a celebration, do not let the opposing team do something to celebrate. 

...and I much more appreciate sportsmanship and professionalism. 

[Unwinder]

Yeah, it's teams' job to be competitive, and it's the leagues job to ensure that entertaining baseball is the most competitive choice. The only exception is if you're totally unable to be competitive, in which case you should try for entertaining instead. But this is almost never the case in MLB because even when you're out of the running, the competitive move is to develop young players for the future.

[DJL44]

10 minutes ago, Unwinder said:

The only exception is if you're totally unable to be competitive, in which case you should try for entertaining instead. 

There is no need to try to be entertaining anymore. Revenue sharing guarantees a profit even if there are no fans in attendance. Non-competitive teams just need to slash their budgets to the minimum and cash revenue-sharing paychecks from the successful large market teams.

[Craig Arko]

Yes.

[notoriousgod71]

I love seeing spontaneous emotion. I don't like seeing pre-planned celebrations. I love seeing old school players get upset at celebrations, spontaneous or pre-planned. I love when old school players retaliate. I love when new school players get mad someone else is mad. I love genuine hatred. I hate boring.

The Bautista Odor rivalry was tremendous entertainment whichever side you're on.

 

[ashbury]

23 hours ago, DJL44 said:

There is no need to try to be entertaining anymore. Revenue sharing guarantees a profit even if there are no fans in attendance. Non-competitive teams just need to slash their budgets to the minimum and cash revenue-sharing paychecks from the successful large market teams.

If you are saying that some of what MLB does is ultimately harmful to building and then sustaining a healthy fan base, I couldn't agree more.  Revenue sharing itself isn't itself the problem - that can be remedied by a minimum payroll for instance - but the overall Moneyball approach has, even in its best cases, produced sometimes winning teams that (for whatever the reason) fans still don't come out to watch. 

Tampa, Miami, and Oakland "win the battle but lose the war" when they draw like they do; Cleveland, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, they all bother me too.  "Ohhh, those are the small markets, woe is them" - no they are the small cities, and this fails to explain St Louis and Milwaukee who draw more than 25,000 all the time.

I'm sort of okay with low attendance if the local media contract indicates high viewership for the games, but that's a degree of detachment that isn't as healthy as people coming out to root, root, root for the home team.

[Rosterman]

Interesting topic.

First, minor leagues. At one point, the St. Paul Saints would try and sign a marquee player every season, just because...although they usually got the guy on the cheap. A minor league team needs to sell the baseball game experience...two teams of up-and-comers playing to win, surrounded by good food and fun at the ballpark. 

Plus money to make a profit.

In the majors, it is easier to sell a winning team than just a ballgame, especially at the prices they ask for prime seats and games. Out of all the teams in baseball, there are few that can use the tagline "Come and see x-player (let's say Buxton) take on Grienke and he Royals this weekend." Would I pay extra bucks to see either of these plaeyrs in a game (and they better be playing.....).

Baseball players are paid, though, as if they are the franchise, the entertainment, the drawing power above and beyond team play, a game of skill and chance, and often hometown pride.

The Twins got a helluva a lot of milage out of selling baseball as The Target Field experience, shortchanging the fans with playoff quality on the field. The game was sold as a win-lose environment, and you don't know if it would be fine pitching or a single hit that would change the results from a happy moment to a sad moment. 

So much of "entertainment" is personality driven. Movies will sell because of whom is playing a role. Doesn't matter so much on television, which needs to get you to come back episode after episode. Music can plug in a superstar voice into a bad musical concert and sell tickets. But how many people go to an orchestra concert because of a specific talent? Sure, a "guest artists" works to keep the season alive.

Ultimately baseball is NOT entertainment. It is a skill, a win/lose. Like horse racing, hockey, basketball, football. Like football, it involves a lot of pieces playing together on the field, and one simple mistake and...wow! What a Game!

Some find it relaxing. Msot find it like playing baord games with those heated relatives who need to win at all costs. And once you put that win-lose factor into an event, it becomes a match, a fighting match, an us vs. them.

Now don't get me started on Town Ball!

[tony&rodney]

Wins are always nice and don't often carry the same weight of complaints as a loss. Nevertheless, good baseball is what I want to see and what entertains me. I thought the Detroit Tigers were very entertaining last season because they struggled to compete most every game. I have enjoyed a number of Cleveland games and liked Seattle last year too. The Twins are often entertaining this year but it is frustrating that they struggle with runners in scoring position, something that could swing completely after the break. I do wish the Twins would consider an appropriate time to bunt, run, and use all of their options. Perhaps there just isn't anyone on the team that can bunt at all or run, thus the paucity of small ball. I guess I should include that I am not suggesting a swing to small ball but think all options should be considered.

[The Mad King]

A little off topic, but I always think about how the NFL started. A bunch of guys wanted to get out of football being a corporate advertising write off to a separate entity about.... Football. And now how today it's circled back to being about the corporation again ...

[Richie the Rally Goat]

[Platoon]

Remember these teams are only partly competitive.  They share enormous pots of revenue, you can’t completely use your own specific financial advantage to overwhelm the other franchise members in company. To some extent, yes, but there are limits.  Think  of it as a McDonald’s 

 

The appearance of competition is more important than the actual thing. If you simply go along with the rules and follow the program you won’t lose any money. Everyone gets a place at the trough! Ask JP! 

[USAFChief]

I don't know for sure what Jim Pohlad's ultimate goal is.

 But for me, I love baseball, but there cam be no true enjoyment without winning.

What's the point? The goal is to win.

[old nurse]

The purpose behind pro sports is to make money. Leagues fold when they don’t make money. That is what pro sports have become. To make money you have to entertain. It is easier to entertain when the team wins. If it were solely about winning there wouldn’t be a need for all of the stadiums serving fancy food and drink

[dxpavelka]

The point is to win.  But at the end of  the day, only one wins.  The other 29 better be entertaining. 

[ashbury]

On 7/17/2022 at 5:35 PM, USAFChief said:

I don't know for sure what Jim Pohlad's ultimate goal is.

 But for me, I love baseball, but there cam be no true enjoyment without winning.

What's the point? The goal is to win.

I don't know about you, but I have pulled off at the side of the road when passing through a small town and happened to notice a ballgame in progress.  It's entertaining to watch two fairly matched teams go at it, and to spot the individual players who seem to know what they're doing.  The goal for the players is certainly to win.  But it need be only part of the motivation for the spectators.  It's better when the home team wins any particular game, and it's better if some seasons they have a legitimate shot at the whole thing.  But it can't be the only thing,  because there aren't enough wins to go around for a viable league to keep going.  There are good baseball cities and bad baseball cities and it's a lot more fun to be a fan of one of the former in a down season.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

11 hours ago, USAFChief said:

I don't know for sure what Jim Pohlad's ultimate goal is.

 But for me, I love baseball, but there cam be no true enjoyment without winning.

What's the point? The goal is to win.

Agreed, for the team, goal needs to be to win. What about the league?

[Riverbrian]

All teams lose a lot and All teams win a lot. When you show up at the ball park or turn on the broadcast. 

There is a high probability of watching your team lose and a high probability of watching your team win every single game. Over 162 games, there will be desensitization.  

If you want to grow the game going forward. You best look at the entertainment aspect of it. 

If you want to keep your job in the front office. You best focus on winning... whatever it takes. 

In the end... You need Both. 

 

[tarheeltwinsfan]

On 7/15/2022 at 2:30 PM, Craig Arko said:

Yes.

Perfect answer to this question. Kudos. 

[Twodogs]

I'd ask a bunch of Yankee and Dodger fans this question.  I'd just like to know what they think?

 

Now if you ask a bunch of Cubs fans......

[Game7-91]

Great question. Others have stated here, both/and. Everyone hopes to be on the winning side of things, but only 50% are on any given night.And everyone expects to enjoy the game, the plays, or the player(s) of interest, the park, or the ambience, whatever "it" is that makes a ballgame enjoyable. Like Ashbury, I find it as much at a small town Legion field as at Target Field.

[Thegrin]

Its not the game, its the fans.  I'd bet most of us Baseball fans played the game at some level in our youth.  We quickly learned that catching, throwing and hitting the ball takes effort and concentration. We came to understand that the game is subtle and demanding and requires patience and attention to detail.

Most of today's fans only superficially played the game.  They have other amusements to capture their attention after school.

For me, nothing is more exciting than a low scoring, 1 run game going into the 9th inning.  After a game like that, you go home from the game knowing that you saw a good one. 

Try to explain that to a kid that played video games instead of little league.

[Monkeypaws]

MLB is a money grubbing business. Win win win.

Unfortunately, even the bottom of the chain, Little League, is hyper competitive, mainly due to butthead parents living off future dreams of their poor kids.

Minor league ball and summer leagues like Northwoods are where it's at. Love my forays to Cedar Rapids to watch the Kernels. It's casual family fun at its best, and easy on the pocketbook. Entertainment is the name of the game.