MLB to talk betting with owners

[Thumb]

By the way, Guys like Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, etc didn't do it to entertain you. They did it so they would be better than everyone else, therefor make more money.

 

[kingofdetroit57]

Entertainers who were likely doing irreparable damage to their bodies by using steroids or HgH.

I'm sure the ancient Romans viewed gladiators as entertainers as well.

But as long as you're happy...

These guys get millions of dollars to play a kid's game. I don't feel bad for them.

 

[kingofdetroit57]

By the way, Guys like Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, etc didn't do it to entertain you. They did it so they would be better than everyone else, therefor make more money.

Those things go hand in hand, Thumb. People are entertained by juicers hitting 500ft HRs every dozen at bats, not station to station baseball. A more entertaining product equals a bigger audience and more money for the owners and players.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Those things go hand in hand, Thumb. People are entertained by juicers hitting 500ft HRs every dozen at bats, not station to station baseball. A more entertaining product equals a bigger audience and more money for the owners and players.

Are you sure? Take a poll on ESPN and you'll get an idea what people think of the juicers..and what did we see with the juicers? Casual fans galore. I certainly wasn't entertained by Sosa and McGuire. I'll take a 13 pitch walk over a 2-pitch home run.

You should say "some people are entertained by juicers hitting 500ft HR's every dozen at bats." More accurate.

 

[kingofdetroit57]

Are you sure? Take a poll on ESPN and you'll get an idea what people think of the juicers..and what did we see with the juicers? Casual fans galore. I certainly wasn't entertained by Sosa and McGuire. I'll take a 13 pitch walk over a 2-pitch home run.

You should say "some people are entertained by juicers hitting 500ft HR's every dozen at bats." More accurate.

I didn't say "everyone" liked it. There are some who didn't for sure. I think the majority of people liked what they saw and I'd venture to guess ticket sales, viewer ratings, and general TV coverage would support that belief.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I didn't say "everyone" liked it. There are some who didn't for sure. I think the majority of people liked what they saw and I'd venture to guess ticket sales, viewer ratings, and general TV coverage would support that belief.

Like I said the casuals come out at that time..But you're still a fan, I am..and they're not hitting 60-70 home runs anymore.

 

[Rebbiv]

MLB attendance

1990-1999 = 601,688,546 (ARZ

2000-2009 = 808,715,710

2010-2014 = 368,341,037 (736,682.074 estimated for 10 years)


From 1990-1999 = 4 new teams (ARZ, TBR, COL, FLA), 2 new ball parks

From 2000-2009 = 12 new ball parks

There is virtually no conclusions you can draw from attendance other than it is as good as it ever has been.

 

[Mitchrapp]

MLB attendance

1990-1999 = 601,688,546 (ARZ

2000-2009 = 808,715,710

2010-2014 = 368,341,037 (736,682.074 estimated for 10 years)


From 1990-1999 = 4 new teams (ARZ, TBR, COL, FLA), 2 new ball parks

From 2000-2009 = 12 new ball parks

There is virtually no conclusions you can draw from attendance other than it is as good as it ever has been.

Good stuff.

 

[Rebbiv]

Day Games

1954
CHC 127 of 154 (82.5%) 64 Wins .75 Mil Attendance
DET 112 of 154 (72.7%) 68 Wins 1.08 Mil Attendance

1964
CHC 120 of 162 (74.1%) 76 Wins .75 Mil Attendance
DET 78 of 162 (48.1%) 85 Wins .82 Mil Attendance

1974
CHC 103 of 162 (63.6%) 66 Wins 1.02 Mil Attendance
DET 58 of 162 (35.8%) 72 Wins 1.24 Mil Attendance

1984
CHC 106 of 161 (65.8%) 96 Wins 2.11 Mil Attendance
DET 52 of 162 (32.1%) 104 Wins 2.70 Mil Attendance

1994 (Strike season)
CHC 67 of 113 (59.3%) 49 Wins 1.85 Mil Attendance
DET 45 of 115 (39.1%) 53 Wins 1.18 Mil Attendance

2004
CHC 87 of 162 (53.7%) 89 Wins 3.17 Mil Attendance
DET 57 of 162 (35.2%) 72 Wins 1.92 Mil Attendance

2014
CHC 74 of 162 (45.7%) 73 Wins 2.65 Mil Attendance
DET 62 of 162 (38.3%) 90 Wins 2.92 Mil Attendance

MLB did not have night games until 1935. The CHC didn't play a home game under the lights until 1988. Changing to night games during the week (most day games are on the weekend), allowed for many more to attend and/or watch on TV. Aside the the Cubs (WGN) and and the Braves (TBS), not many teams broadcast day games in the middle of the week, so TV revenues reflected this.

They still have Opening Day day games and/or early season games because of weather considerations that are played in the day. They have "getaway" day games. But by in large, teams make more money and have higher attendance on night games during the week. They will also have higher attendance when they are winning more.

As seen by the influx of new stadiums, venues also matter. Wrigley and Fenway will probably never close, or at least any time soon. While Tiger Stadium, as a multi-purpose stadium, had way too many obstructed view seats. Comerica virtually has not obstructed view, unless you are near the foul poles. The complaint with Comerica is the amount of unshaded seating and the distance away from the field. I have read, the first row of the upperdeck at Comerica Park is FURTHER from the field the the last row was at Tiger Stadium. On a hot sunny day, there are not a lot of shaded seats. Camden, Jacob's, PNC, AT&T, etc, etc are just as new as Comerica. They have mitigated obstructed view seats, but at least with those stadiums there is far more shaded seats for those hot summer days. Even Yankee Stadium III is a far superior stadium and in the design, they eliminated many obstructed view seats.

The Tigers wouldn't have received as much grief if they built a Tiger Stadium II. One with the same basic design dimensions, but without the amount of obstructed view. That design change alone could bring an additional 200k in attendance a year.

I digress. Hard core fans will attend games in person or on TV regardless. Casual fans will attend in person, but if they get roasted in the sun, they generally won't repeat a visit, or at least anytime soon. There are also fair weather fans, which means they only go when a team wins. And they don't stay long once there if the team is losing.

At no time does the fact that someone hits a 500 ft HR impact the masses. Cecil Fielder had negligible effect on attendance. Having Rob Deer, Mickey Tettleton and Pete Incaviglia around Fielder didn't really increase attendance.

 

[tomdalton22]

why do you think an extra 200K people a year would attend games if the field dimensions were like old Tiger Stadium?

 

[byco42]

The one observation that stands out to me in this thread is "baseball is not nationally a very popular sport" ... what? I need to look into this.

 

[Rebbiv]

why do you think an extra 200K people a year would attend games if the field dimensions were like old Tiger Stadium?

Did I say anything about dimensions effecting attendance? No.

It is has to do with obstructed view seating, having shaded seating for those hot sunny days and proximity to the field. And yes, 200 k is a conservative estimate and no, I have nothing but gut instinct to base that on.

 

[tomdalton22]

Did I say anything about dimensions effecting attendance? No.

It is has to do with obstructed view seating, having shaded seating for those hot sunny days and proximity to the field. And yes, 200 k is a conservative estimate and no, I have nothing but gut instinct to base that on.

I misunderstood what you were getting at. So you are saying a 50K+ seat stadium with better overhangs for more shaded areas?

 

[kingofdetroit57]

Like I said the casuals come out at that time..But you're still a fan, I am..and they're not hitting 60-70 home runs anymore.

I think that's part of my point that maybe wasn't articulated that clearly until now. I'm more talking about the "casual fan" who thinks baseball is slow and boring, not the screwballs like us who are here analyzing attendance records when there is a foot and a half of snow on the ground. You, me, Rebbiv, and most everybody else on this site are gonna watch regardless. We may not always agree on the best form of the game, but we're diehards. A lot of what I'm saying is really just that not everybody is that way. Baseball is slow, boring, and behind the times in a lot of peoples' eyes. In some respects, I like it that way, but in others, I totally agree. I hate the 4hr+ games, the lack of instant replay on certain crucial calls, the fact that the playoffs regularly get impacted by bad weather now, and so on. I am also not going to lie and act like I didn't enjoy watching the Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa sideshow of the early 2000s. I knew full well they were roided out of their minds, but so were many of the pitchers pitching to them. It might make their accomplishment less impressive when compared to guys who did it clean, but then again, maybe not. The "clean" guys weren't facing pitching and fielding like we see today. They also weren't nearly as physically gifted as the average player of today. You look at the old teams and they were a lot of average Joes working side jobs in the offseason. Not to say they couldn't play the game on an elite level, just saying that it was a different era. Today, guys train year round and are usually bigger, faster, and stronger than their contemporaries. If you are into watching baseball in a form closer to the old days, you can always go watch some little league, high school, or even college ball. The truth is that not many people would watch that over a bunch of physical freaks playing the game. Why watch a pitcher throw 85mph when there are some that throw 100mph? Why watch 350ft HRs when there are guys that hit them 450ft? That's the mentality of a lot of people, and in many cases, I tend to agree with it. That said, there is still something great about watching a player who can get the most out of their talent, even if they aren't the most physically gifted. Pitchers who carve up lineups with less than spectacular stuff. Hitters who can slap the ball all over the field, but rarely hit one out. I was a big fan of Kenny Rogers and Placido Polanco because they were those types of players.

 

[kingofdetroit57]

As seen by the influx of new stadiums, venues also matter. Wrigley and Fenway will probably never close, or at least any time soon. While Tiger Stadium, as a multi-purpose stadium, had way too many obstructed view seats. Comerica virtually has not obstructed view, unless you are near the foul poles. The complaint with Comerica is the amount of unshaded seating and the distance away from the field. I have read, the first row of the upperdeck at Comerica Park is FURTHER from the field the the last row was at Tiger Stadium. On a hot sunny day, there are not a lot of shaded seats. Camden, Jacob's, PNC, AT&T, etc, etc are just as new as Comerica. They have mitigated obstructed view seats, but at least with those stadiums there is far more shaded seats for those hot summer days. Even Yankee Stadium III is a far superior stadium and in the design, they eliminated many obstructed view seats.

The Tigers wouldn't have received as much grief if they built a Tiger Stadium II. One with the same basic design dimensions, but without the amount of obstructed view. That design change alone could bring an additional 200k in attendance a year.

I digress. Hard core fans will attend games in person or on TV regardless. Casual fans will attend in person, but if they get roasted in the sun, they generally won't repeat a visit, or at least anytime soon. There are also fair weather fans, which means they only go when a team wins. And they don't stay long once there if the team is losing.

At no time does the fact that someone hits a 500 ft HR impact the masses. Cecil Fielder had negligible effect on attendance. Having Rob Deer, Mickey Tettleton and Pete Incaviglia around Fielder didn't really increase attendance.

I went to many games at Tiger Stadium as a yound kid, even went on the field a couple times to meet players, but that place was a dump. I recall foul balls hitting the roof and paint chips raining down, the million layers of paint and grunge on everything in there, lots of rust and crust everywhere. I have lots of fond memories there, but I don't miss it. I think CoPa is a million times nicer. That said, CoPa isn't without its faults. The worst of which are the sun & heat issues you mentioned, as well as some of the "sprawl" of the seating. I specifically avoid going to midday games in the hottest months of the year and instead will seek out the night games. I also avoid left and centerfield because of the sun glare and heat of it. I can always work around that and pick different seats, and sometimes I do, but other times I'll just stay home and watch it in HD from my recliner with A/C and a fridge full of cold beers that don't cost $10 each.

On your other point regarding the early nineties Tigers boom or bust lineups, I personally disagree (not disagreeing with your point on the masses, just how it impacted me as a kid). I loved those teams because of all the homeruns they hit. I used to beg my parents to take me there to watch those guys. Tettleton was my favorite players as a kid because he was also a catcher, he hit a decent amount of homeruns, he had a goofy stance/bat position, and he always had a great big wad of chew in his lip. I'd copy that with bubble gum as I played little league ball. I also really liked Fielder, Griffey, and Ripken and saved my money to buy their jerseys. One of my favorite Tigers game memories was when Cecil hit the homeruns off/over the roof at Tiger Stadium (I was there in person). I also remember going to a couple huge blow out wins where we put up something around 20-runs. I remember those far more than the well played, tight games I've been to over the years. I enjoy both, but the big homeruns, crazy pitching performances, and other "athletic feats" type of things are what stuck with me.

 

[tomdalton22]

I went to many games at Tiger Stadium as a yound kid, even went on the field a couple times to meet players, but that place was a dump. I recall foul balls hitting the roof and paint chips raining down, the million layers of paint and grunge on everything in there, lots of rust and crust everywhere. I have lots of fond memories there, but I don't miss it. I think CoPa is a million times nicer. That said, CoPa isn't without its faults. The worst of which are the sun & heat issues you mentioned, as well as some of the "sprawl" of the seating. I specifically avoid going to midday games in the hottest months of the year and instead will seek out the night games. I also avoid left and centerfield because of the sun glare and heat of it. I can always work around that and pick different seats, and sometimes I do, but other times I'll just stay home and watch it in HD from my recliner with A/C and a fridge full of cold beers that don't cost $10 each.

On your other point regarding the early nineties Tigers boom or bust lineups, I personally disagree (not disagreeing with your point on the masses, just how it impacted me as a kid). I loved those teams because of all the homeruns they hit. I used to beg my parents to take me there to watch those guys. Tettleton was my favorite players as a kid because he was also a catcher, he hit a decent amount of homeruns, he had a goofy stance/bat position, and he always had a great big wad of chew in his lip. I'd copy that with bubble gum as I played little league ball. I also really liked Fielder, Griffey, and Ripken and saved my money to buy their jerseys. One of my favorite Tigers game memories was when Cecil hit the homeruns off/over the roof at Tiger Stadium (I was there in person). I also remember going to a couple huge blow out wins where we put up something around 20-runs. I remember those far more than the well played, tight games I've been to over the years. I enjoy both, but the big homeruns, crazy pitching performances, and other "athletic feats" type of things are what stuck with me.

I agree 100%...Tiger Stadium was a shit hole!

 

[Thumb]

I agree 100%...Tiger Stadium was a shit hole!

Blasphemous moron speak.

 

[byco42]

I prefer to say that Tiger Stadium was under maintained. The playing arena, though, was one of the best ever.

 

[Thumb]

I prefer to say that Tiger Stadium was under maintained. The playing arena, though, was one of the best ever.

This.

It was one of the oldest around, and did not have the money poured into it like Fenway, Wrigley, or Yankee Stadium did.

It was a classic in every sense of the word.

 

[Rebbiv]

Tiger Stadium began to deteriorate at a faster rate after the City of Detroit purchased the stadium in 1977. Tiger Stadium opened in 1912 and was no different than most MLB stadiums from that era.

http://www.realclearsports.com/articles/2012/04/23/whats_the_life_span_of_a_ballpark_97668.html

23 stadiums that first hosted major league baseball between 1992 and 2012, only six were the result of expansion or team movement.

The other thing to point out is the AstroTurf stadiums from the late 60s into the 1990s. Also known as cookie-cutter stadiums, these stadiums are pushing the 40-50 year mark. Kauffman Stadium in KC was an elegant stadium in 1973 when it first opened. KC has just recently extended its lease until 2030 and the stadium is anything like what it was in the 70s, 80s or even 90s.

Shade comes from building a taller stadium and what the orientation is (north, south, etc to home plate). Camden Yards/Oriole Park is probably one of the better, if not the best, of the newer stadium for watching a game.

Home Plate

Camden = Southwest corner, same as Tiger Stadium

Comerica = North

So, with an afternoon sun, in Camden Yards, the sun is in the rightfield foul pole area, which doesn't have a lot of seating. The whole first baseline/behind home plate is offering shade and contains the most seating

In Comerica Park, the whole outfield is in the sun, especially leftfield. The sun almost has to be behind the stadium for the leftfield to be in the shade.

In addition to sun, wind is a factor as well.

And as a side, they can now canter-lever the upper decks minimizing the use of support beams and causing obstructed views.