Game 135 Tigers vs. Indians Sept 2, 2017

Mitchrapp · Sep 3, 2017

turok said:
meh...they have instant access to vids, interviews and stats online, and play in fantasy leagues...something that we oldies didn't have, or had to wait to read in the newspapers or get stale in sports magazines.

Kids are not interested in baseball like they used to be. It's a small %, probably 5-8 %. Older people, over 45 - more like 50% or more. These are raw numbers of course. Part of that is the mobile phone, PlayStation etc..

When's the last time you've seen neighborhood kids play baseball? Kids aren't watching online baseball video's and stats.. They're on YouTube.

turok · Sep 4, 2017

Mitchrapp said:
Kids are not interested in baseball like they used to be. It's a small %, probably 5-8 %. Older people, over 45 - more like 50% or more. These are raw numbers of course. Part of that is the mobile phone, PlayStation etc..

When's the last time you've seen neighborhood kids play baseball? Kids aren't watching online baseball video's and stats.. They're on YouTube.

When I was a kid, the US population was ~200M. Now its closing in on double that, 50 years later. Granted that the remaining silents, boomers, and gen x/yers make up the biggest chunks of that, but the "z" gen is not tiny, either. Besides which, I was replying to your post about a supposed kid who IS a baseball fan, not how many or what percentage of kids who are.

tomdalton22 · Sep 4, 2017

Mitchrapp said:
75 wins next year? They aren't even a 75 win team this year and that was with JV, JD, and JUP.

what I meant is the $200M+ team couldn't even get to .500 so what's the point in spending $200M+ on a shitty, aging team.

Mitchrapp · Sep 4, 2017

turok said:
When I was a kid, the US population was ~200M. Now its closing in on double that, 50 years later. Granted that the remaining silents, boomers, and gen x/yers make up the biggest chunks of that, but the "z" gen is not tiny, either. Besides which, I was replying to your post about a supposed kid who IS a baseball fan, not how many or what percentage of kids who are.

Kids are needed for a sport to thrive. Eventually us older people will be gone and then what? Those kids who don't watch now or the teenage years won't suddenly watch when they get older. Baseball is not as popular as it was 30 years ago.. Cut in half actually. Few kids watching is one of those reasons why.

Mitchrapp · Sep 4, 2017

tomdalton22 said:
what I meant is the $200M+ team couldn't even get to .500 so what's the point in spending $200M+ on a shitty, aging team.

So 25-30 thousand go to a game instead of 15 thousand. So More JV jersey sales. And more.. Any event, lets say they kept JV, ad Upton. They would have had a better chance to get back to playoff baseball then without either. A bad farm system is better than a shitty farm system, but you still don't have future ML talent.

tomdalton22 · Sep 4, 2017

Mitchrapp said:
So 25-30 thousand go to a game instead of 15 thousand. So More JV jersey sales. And more.. Any event, lets say they kept JV, ad Upton. They would have had a better chance to get back to playoff baseball then without either. A bad farm system is better than a shitty farm system, but you still don't have future ML talent.

even at their worst (119 loss season) they averaged 17,000. Attendance has gone down every year since 2013. Attendance is driven by winning...not "star players". This team wasn't winning with the aging veterans so attendance was going to continue to go down.

Mitchrapp · Sep 4, 2017

tomdalton22 said:
even at their worst (119 loss season) they averaged 17,000. Attendance has gone down every year since 2013. Attendance is driven by winning...not "star players". This team wasn't winning with the aging veterans so attendance was going to continue to go down.

But JV, JUP, JD - we win more thus attendance goes up or at least drops less. You will probably mention even with them they only win 70 games.. But without them how many? 50? Star players are needed. You don't win without them. Whether you spend 200m or 100m you need star players..

People seem to forget they were in playoff contention the season before.. With the same aging stars, even when JUP having a much worse season. We just had too many players who struggled at the same time in '17. Older, and younger.

turok · Sep 4, 2017

Mitchrapp said:
Kids are needed for a sport to thrive. Eventually us older people w ill be gone and then what? Those kids who don't watch now or the teenage years won't suddenly watch when they get older. Baseball is not as popular as it was 30 years ago.. Cut in half actually. Few kids watching is one of those reasons why.

If baseball is destined to go from our 20th century "national pastime" to a very limited niche market-audience ala the NHL by mid-century, then there is nothing gonna stop it. Maybe Japan and Central/South America is where it will still be popular. Won't matter to me, I'll be deceased.

Mitchrapp · Sep 4, 2017

turok said:
If baseball is destined to go from our 20th century "national pastime" to a very limited niche market-audience ala the NHL by mid-century, then there is nothing gonna stop it. Maybe Japan and Central/South America is where it will still be popular. Won't matter to me, I'll be deceased.

Why do you think the NFL is top dog? More young people. It's not a coincidence. And why would other countries have more kids watching? They're all playing soccer .. "..then there is nothing gonna stop it." Really?

turok · Sep 4, 2017

"It's a small %, probably 5-8 %. Older people, over 45 - more like 50% or more. These are raw numbers of course."

"They're all playing soccer"

Nah, these are numbers absent any citation.

Are you arguing just for the sake of doing so?

b/c this isn't Monty Python's Flying Circus.

tomdalton22 · Sep 4, 2017

Mitchrapp said:
But JV, JUP, JD - we win more thus attendance goes up or at least drops less. You will probably mention even with them they only win 70 games.. But without them how many? 50? Star players are needed. You don't win without them. Whether you spend 200m or 100m you need star players..

People seem to forget they were in playoff contention the season before.. With the same aging stars, even when JUP having a much worse season. We just had too many players who struggled at the same time in '17. Older, and younger.

and they only won 74 games in 2015 with pretty much the same core players. Are you actually arguing that they should have kept this team together for next year????

Mitchrapp · Sep 4, 2017

turok said:
"It's a small %, probably 5-8 %. Older people, over 45 - more like 50% or more. These are raw numbers of course."

"They're all playing soccer"

Nah, these are numbers absent any citation.

Are you arguing just for the sake of doing so?

b/c this isn't Monty Python's Flying Circus.

I was thinking the same about you. Lol. They weren't just made up, at least the baseball part. I had read them in places.

Mitchrapp · Sep 4, 2017

tomdalton22 said:
and they only won 74 games in 2015 with pretty much the same core players. Are you actually arguing that they should have kept this team together for next year????

No. It's a discussion by the way. I'm saying if wins and losses control attendance why trade your best players? 86, 74 or whatever will be a far cry from next season.. Most likely. And you might find this fascinating, but some go to games because of certain players..

And some places like Miami will never have good attendance while LA, good or bad will have a lot.

tomdalton22 · Sep 4, 2017

Mitchrapp said:
No. It's a discussion by the way. I'm saying if wins and losses control attendance why trade your best players? 86, 74 or whatever will be a far cry from next season.. Most likely. And you might find this fascinating, but some go to games because of certain players..

And some places like Miami will never have good attendance while LA, good or bad will have a lot.

they traded their best players in order to reduce payroll and replenish the depleted farm system. They accomplished both. Sometimes you have to make difficult and unpopular decisions. The decision to trade all of these players were the correct decisions.

Mitchrapp · Sep 4, 2017

tomdalton22 said:
they traded their best players in order to reduce payroll and replenish the depleted farm system. They accomplished both. Sometimes you have to make difficult and unpopular decisions. The decision to trade all of these players were the correct decisions.

But they didn't make themselves better, either now or in the future. JV, the way he was pitching - coming off a Cy Young season should get better. JD, laughable. JUP, salary dump.

So we became worse but with a lower payroll. Whee.

tomdalton22 · Sep 4, 2017

Mitchrapp said:
But they didn't make themselves better, either now or in the future. JV, the way he was pitching - coming off a Cy Young season should get better. JD, laughable. JUP, salary dump.

So we became worse but with a lower payroll. Whee.

How much worse did they really get. The only loss from next year's team was JV.

JD was going to leave no matter what.

It has been reported that JUP's agent told Tiger's management that he was going to opt out...might as well get something in return

JV got 3 good prospects.

Plus they got Candelario from the Cubs who should be a very good player for the Tigers.

Mitchrapp · Sep 4, 2017

tomdalton22 said:
How much worse did they really get. The only loss from next year's team was JV.

JD was going to leave no matter what.

It has been reported that JUP's agent told Tiger's management that he was going to opt out...might as well get something in return

JV got 3 good prospects.

Plus they got Candelario from the Cubs who should be a very good player for the Tigers.

3 good prospects? One is the 47 best prospect the others weren't top 100. They did not get 3 good prospects.

tomdalton22 · Sep 4, 2017

Mitchrapp said:
3 good prospects? One is the 47 best prospect the others weren't top 100. They did not get 3 good prospects.

47th best in baseball. All three are expected to be major league players. To what degree (star, every day or backup) is unknown. IMO, any prospect that is "expected" to be a ML player is considered to be a good prospect.

The problem with your point of view is you act like JV is the same guy that won a Cy Young and MVP. That was a long time ago.

Mitchrapp · Sep 4, 2017

tomdalton22 said:
47th best in baseball. All three are expected to be major league players. To what degree (star, every day or backup) is unknown. IMO, any prospect that is "expected" to be a ML player is considered to be a good prospect.

The problem with your point of view is you act like JV is the same guy that won a Cy Young and MVP. That was a long time ago.

3 of 3 being ML players. In what universe? You mean Efr?n Navarro? He's a major leaguer. You want 3 of him?

JV was 2nd in Cy Young Last season, that was not that long ago. Your memory must be short. And he's been pitching great .. That should matter.

tomdalton22 · Sep 4, 2017

Mitchrapp said:
3 of 3 being ML players. In what universe? You mean Efr?n Navarro? He's a major leaguer. You want 3 of him?

JV was 2nd in Cy Young Last season, that was not that long ago. Your memory must be short. And he's been pitching great .. That should matter.

Efren Navarro was not part of that deal...he's a 31 year old journeyman that shouldn't be on a ML roster.

You keep saying they should have kept JV but why...they were NOT going to be above .500 with him during the next few years.

Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

Game 135 Tigers vs. Indians Sept 2, 2017

Moderator

Well-known member

Senior Member

Moderator

Moderator

Senior Member

Moderator

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Senior Member

Moderator

Moderator

Senior Member

Moderator

Senior Member

Moderator

Senior Member

Moderator

Senior Member

About Us

Stay Connected

Forum statistics

Affiliates