A great year, beginning to end. We had more competitive balance.
Bud Selig, discussing 2009 via mlb.com. Craig Calcaterra at NBCsports.com has a great response: "When Selig talks about success, competitive balance is not anything he's particularly interested in. Yes, he gives it lip service ... but the fact is that his greatest success as Commissioner has been overall revenue growth." Both of them worth reads, if for infuriating reasons.
over 2 years ago
fleerdon
203 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
When it’s all said and done, the things Selig has done for baseball will outweigh what he has done wrong.
The negative aspects of the past 20 years (steroids, decreased popularity among Americans, greater wealth disparity between the haves/have-nots) were largely out of his control and would have happened anyway. I think he has been poor at responding to all three, but they are not his fault.
Hopefully the other owners will see that having “one of their kind” as a commisioner is a bad idea and will veer to somebody else for a fresh change. But money always talks and Bud’s bottom line (during his reign) looks pretty impressive.
So we are to celebrate the commissioner for catering to the large markets in the name of revenue growth during his reign?
Disagree strongly.
Well what is the purpose of a commissioner? Many would say that it is to ensure the financial viability of his league.
by jakesinger777 on Dec 28, 2009 4:58 PM EST up reply actions
I guess Selig, drunk to the truth-telling stage, might say that competitive balance is a luxury, but fiscal solvency isn’t. You make sure it floats before you start worrying about which direction you’re sailing. We could argue about the point at which priorities should shift, or should have shifted.
by fleerdon on Dec 28, 2009 8:32 PM EST up reply actions
Selig was complicit in a devastating strike that cost baseball many of its fans (one of two work stoppages, I think, during his reign). He responded to this marketing disaster by juicing the ball and looking the other way as Sammy and Big Mac took America for a too-good-to-be-true ride. We have the debacle of the Montreal Expos and Jeffrey Loria and Claude Brochu and Bud’s fatuous threat of contraction (“a viable option,” he said, and then the Twins were gone). Under his leadership the game has seen profound loss in audience among African Americans, with little being done to correct it. He has helped build and maintain an economic structure that unfairly favors four or five teams at the expense of 25 others. These are things we can blame on Mr. Selig.
The only reason revenue has increased so much is: (1) the ability of teams to get public support for building new stadiums, and (2) the economy, stupid. Babe Ruth didn’t save baseball. The Dow Jones industrial average did.
And then there is the matter of the All Star game called by the commissioner.
Selig has been a disaster, plain and simple. He has avoided the destruction of the game only by luck.
Selig was only acting commissioner when the 94 strike occurred. You may argue that he had his hand in it, because he was one of the (many) owners that colluded against players in the 80’s which prompted the poor union/management relations. But it was still a problem he inherited when made (acting) commish. It’s also curious why you neglect to mention that baseball had 7 work stoppages in the 2 decades previous to him taking commissioner. Not to mention he was instrumental in preventing a 2002 work stoppage that seemed imminent.
What exactly was wrong with the Expos situation? It was a dying franchise for years.Bud wanted to get the franchise out of Montreal (good choice) and did so. Blaming the declining interest among African Americans in baseball on Bud Selig just shows how much of an axe you have to grind. How you can blame him for the interests of a minority group is laughable at best. There have been numerous initiatives created by the MLB to fix this problem.
Revenues under Bud have increased 300-400 percent. Far outstripping whatever performance the Dow Jones (or the broader economy) has done.That’s not just dumb luck, if that were the case the NHL would have grown in the same manner.
As far as the assertion that “he has helped build and maintain an economic structure that unfairly favors four or five teams at the expense of 25 others”, who do you think is helping keep baseball in the struggling markets? It’s not the financial decisions of those owners. If it weren’t for those “4 or 5 teams” there would be threats of contraction/teams moving every 4-5 years for a numerous amount of clubs. Get major league owners to concede their profits for the overall health of the league was a monumental achievement.
So again, it’s not hard to find the flaws of his regime, but his positive changes (in a sport that abhors and constantly fights change) outweigh them.
For a sport that refused to change for decades and decades
The idea that you have to have an oligopoly of the megalopolis or you have teams moving every 5 years is ridiculous. Since the NFL instituted revenue sharing in 1962, there have been exactly as many football relocations as baseball relocations (if you count both ends of Al Davis’ There and Back Again trip). The current system is only laudable because baseball has neither a Pete Rozelle nor a Carroll Rosenbloom.
(1) Bud was complicit in previous work stoppages, along with his good friend Jerry Reinsdorf. The distinction between his role as acting commissioner and real commissioner is minor. He has been part of the corrupt ownership of the game for years.
(2) The Expos were a mess that never should have been allowed to get that bad. When the team started going south—literally and figuratively—MLB should have assisted the franchise and worked with provincial government to keep the team in Montreal. It became a further disaster with Brochu and Loria. Loria’s involvement in particular. (I’ve ranted about Loria before, but his role in all this is astonishing.) There was no reason to close the franchise in Montreal, but if that were going to be the case the transition could have been more orderly.
(3) The waning of interest among African Americans represents a failure of marketing. Marketing is under the commissioner’s control, but he chose to market a pachinko-style game in which cartoonish hitters walloped 75 homeruns. A game in which juiced balls and PEDs would distract fans disappointed by the game’s pathetic labor-management history. (The pachinko marketing and the failure to attract African Americans are not necessarily connected.) This sort of marketing suggests there is something inherently wrong with the game itself.
(3) DJIA was at 3,200 at the start of 1992, Bud’s first year as acting commissioner. It went to 14,000 in 2007. Selig doesn’t “far out-strip” those figures. The NHL is a league managed even more poorly than baseball.
(4) Who would the oligarchical teams play? The Washington Generals? Television revenues really altered the playing field.
This post could easily spawn four different threads, each of them a discussion worth having.
- I take a different view of the work stoppages. For decades, the union dominated ownership, and while the owners were dumb and unethical, the union’s dominance at the negotiating table eventually became a core problem for the game, creating a situation where ownership was powerless to deal with the imbalance wrought by maturing media markets. Bud has led the owners on a long path toward a better, more balanced relationship with the union, first via hardball tactics, and then later through good-faith partnership and negotiation. I’m guessing you’re smart enough to know you can’t eventually become an equal partner without being willing to play hardball first, Nixon and China, yadda yadda yadda. I see this development as positive.
- I personally think there are too many teams, and Montreal was an ill-suited market. The Twins have now survived and may even thrive, but at what cost to taxpayers? I see nothing wrong with eliminating Montreal and at least one Florida club, and possibly two others. Could Montreal have been saved? Maybe; I’m not knowledgable enough to say, really. The better question is, should it have been saved? One thing I can tell you, it was by far the most awful place I’ve ever seen a ballgame, including Yankee Stadium.
- It’s not clear to me that the loss of interest by African-Americans is something MLB can do much about, or that it’s even a real problem. As we’ve seen before, if you take out the influx of Latino and Asian players, the percentage of black players hasn’t changed much at all — that is, it has declined only at a pace with white American players. How much is this reflected in the fan base? It’s not clear. I suspect whatever interest has been lost is more an inevitable result of two factors: (1) the increasing stratification of income among Americans, and (2) the drive to maximize revenue in MLB overall, which has pushed MLB game attendance out of the reach of many middle class families, plus everyone who’s anywhere near the poverty line. These are separate issues worthy of their own discussions, but the racially considered decline in interest seems like a byproduct of these larger issues rather than a real issue in its own right.
- Most of that DJIA increase in wealth went to the investor class. The GDP only went from 6.4 trillion to 14.1 trillion, a little more than double. This makes the MLB revenue increase look more impressive. It also suggests, in combination with my previous bullet, that MLB drove revenues by marketing to the investor class who disproportionately were seeing an improvement in wealth. Much of this no doubt is from luxury boxes, corporate sponsorships and corporate season ticket sales, but I’m sure a lot of it is from plain old consumer season ticket sales.
- Obviously I am no more in favor of the oligarchical approach than you are. I’m by no means sure that Selig is okay with it, but obviously, even if many owners don’t like it, they have a less of a problem with it than the fans do.
I see nothing wrong with eliminatingMontreal and at least oneFloridaclub
Am I wrong?
by APV on Dec 30, 2009 10:50 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
What if I just confined it to major Florida sports teams/programs? (Rays, Marlins, Heat, Magic, Seminoles, Gators, Hurricanes, Dolphins, Lightning…)
In fairness to Jacksonville…the team isn’t even on the sidelines yet, so the game probably hasn’t started (when most NFL fans are outside tailgaiting.) Second, Jacksonville has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country right now, but prior to this season attendance for the Jags was actually pretty good.
Florida is a hot, humid, roach infested hell-hole. Come to Maui Roger my man, come to Maui.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Don’t forget they have no real zoning. Outside of the coasts, the place is a absolute disaster.
I've really got to change my signature.
Outside of the coasts
And if the coasts and the endless stretch of crappy hotels/condo units is the good part…
To the extent that the consensus on global warming is correct, this is already in the works..
by baerga1 on Dec 30, 2009 12:13 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
In my Conflict of Laws class, the prof once was explaining the context of a case that involved a law about where people were, geographically, when they passed away. He said something like, “Remember that hardly anybody had cars, and there weren’t appropriate medical facilities to drive to anyway. People died in their homes. By comparison, where do people go to die today?”
Some dude — didn’t miss a beat — yells out, “FLORIDA.”
by fleerdon on Dec 30, 2009 1:08 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Rec for having the guts to sit through that class.
The once and future
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Dec 30, 2009 3:11 PM EST up reply actions
- In terms of realpolitik, the owner hawks (of which Selig was a member) managed to restore better balance with unions (although not much for the Indians or Pirates). But 1994 is a hard one to swallow as an Indians’ fan.
- The Expos surpassed 2 million in attendance in 1979, 1980, 1982 and 1983. The stadium was a disaster, but people did support the team.
- I’m not sure anything could have been done to maintain or increase the involvement of African American players and fans, but the way the game was marketed in the 1990s did, as you state, make it difficult for many people to attend games. In the 1990s, I think, MLB marketed the game as family friendly, which was not the way the NBA marketed itself. You are probably right that this isn’t something that can be laid at the Selig doorstep.
- You’re right about the investor class. But my point was that the game prospered along with the economy, just as the game prospered in the 1920s along with a prosperous stock market.
- Selig supposedly represented a small-market team (Brewers) but he has done little to abet these teams.
The waning of interest among African Americans represents a failure of marketing.
I agree with Jay on this. If MLB wants to increase African-American involvement in baseball I don’t think different marketing is likely to be effective. In addition to the economic aspects Jay highlights there is a reality of reflecting post-1960s urban development in the US as well. Baseball is a very expensive activity for kids in highly structured urban settings, regardless of race, because of the cost of land, time and organization necessary to make baseball work. I don’t even know if the RBI (reviving baseball in innercities) program still exists, but my guess is that if it does the odds are stacked mightily against its success.
I haven’t travelled enough in Latin America to know how youth baseball works there, but my guess is the lack of organized structure in terms of school and employment commitments and urban zoning issues makes playing baseball for kids a lot easier. If baseball really wanted to increase the number of black players in the league I would think taking some of the funds out of the saturated Caribbean and developing “baseball academies” in places like Ghana and South Africa would probably produce some results.
RBI exists. They run a ton of ads for it featuring the game’s black stars: Rollins, especially. You can see a slightly longer list here. Crawford, Crisp, Loney, Rollins, Sabathia, and Yovani Gallardo are all RBI kids, apparently.
Baseball is a very expensive activity for kids in highly structured urban settings
Huh? Wha? Baseball is more expensive than football – is that what I’m hearing? You could buy gloves, bats and balls for a whole baseball team for what it costs to outfit a kid for football. In terms of real estate a baseball diamond is not that much bigger than a football field. But in the real world kids play both games on a shoestring. A $40 glove, a $5 ball, three or four $25 bats to share with 10-20 other kids and you’re good to go. Sandlot style football requires a little more of an investment – but not much. Basketball – in the off-season, when the weather’s good – is considerably cheaper to play. But when the snow starts flyin’ – like it’s want to during the basketball season – one could argue that it’s actually more expensive than football. But in the end, African-Americans comprise 79% of NBA line-ups, 65% of the NFL and only 18% – equal to the Hispanic cohort – of MLB. You’ll note that the author of the cited article attributes the disparity to some abstract crypto-racism. I just don’t buy it. Sports are the ultimate expression of a meritocracy. If you can help the team win, you play. If you can’t, you don’t.
In my opinion the disparity of racial composition in the three leagues is more of a grass roots issue. That is: for once it ain’t the money or marketing. There’s something else afoot here, and I’ll be damned if I know what it is
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
It’s getting the kids to coincide with the place that takes the money. Where are you going to play in downtown Akron? Because you can’t play down there, you move the game to the suburbs. By moving the game out there you make it more expensive for kids to come out of the city to play. Anyone can grab a ball and head to the Y or an open lot to play basketball, it takes some commitment from someone who can drive to get to most baseball suited areas.
Why is that different from any other period? In the 1950s there were many fewer vacant lots in our cities. In the 1920s, when urban density was much higher than it is today, kids played on sandlots and in urban environs.
Because it is different. There are no more sandlots or urban environs to play baseball. Baseball is the sport of the suburbs now, that’s just how it is. I think the general lack of popularity of the sport has driven it out of the inner city to areas where people have more time and space.
I think this is probably right
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 31, 2009 1:43 PM EST up reply actions
OK, say you’re right. Then how do you explain the fact that the percentage of African American football players is more than four times the percentage of A-A baseball players?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
For a ten-dollar Wal*Mart football, a dozen kids can play in someone’s 20×50 front yard, or two kids can throw it back an forth. You need at least one ball, one bat, 12 gloves, and 200 feet in every direction from the nearest window for the same dozen kids to play baseball. Two kids can toss a baseball back and forth, but that does nothing to help them learn how to hit, and anyone who has ever tried two-person BP, even with 20 balls, knows how lame that is. Football is cheaper to execute “sandlot” style, and that’s why 3.5x more black people play it.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Oh, I think we all played a lot closer to windows than that.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 1, 2010 8:34 PM EST up reply actions
Problem with the study cited is it’s more than ten years old. I think there was a time when certain NBA teams had to pay attention to the racial composition of their rosters. That seems to have changed. The study cites MLB as having the lowest percentage of African American fans (lower than the NBA and NFL). Perhaps you’re right, though: Maybe it isn’t about money or marketing. Maybe it’s a cultural shift.
I think there definitely is a cultural shift. How else to explain the dominance of Dominican players at the highest level of the game? Anyone who knows human genetics knows that the differences between “races” (which scarcely can even be said to exist biologically) are far more slight than they might appear to be based on following pro sports. In the Dominican, kids play baseball all day, every day, from a very young age, and you can’t put a price on that. If baseball were still the game of choice in African-American enclaves, you’d have a lot more great players coming from those places.
I agree. It’s a shame African American athletes don’t play more baseball, because there would be more good players. But why do fewer African Americans attend baseball games than attend football or basketball games? Is it because there are fewer African American players?
I’m not so sure that’s true.
According to Staples, 1987, African-Americans account for 17%, 7.5% and 6.8% of the attendance in the NBA, NFL, and MLB professional sporting events
Obviously, those figures have changed since 1987, to the detriment of baseball.
In the Dominican, kids don’t have to go to school.
by afh4 on Dec 31, 2009 11:26 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
You can develop basic football skills with two guys and a ball. With two guys, a ball, and two gloves you can’t do much more than play catch. In order to begin developing some basic batting and pitching skills, unless you want to be constantly fetching balls (something dogs like, but in my experience kids don’t), you need something like 5 kids.
It only take 2 people to learn baseball skills. Sometimes one … a kid with a glove and ball and a wall. What did Bob Feller do on that farm all day long?
I've really got to change my signature.
I used to pitch by myself all summer long into a wheelbarrow I had stood on end and painted a target on. Also, in college, we spend countless hours simply softtossing and htting off the tee.
I can understand APV’s point, but I think you can learn some baseball skills with two people or simply by yourself.
Anything in life is possible, except for skiing through revolving doors.
by MooneysRebellion on Dec 31, 2009 1:19 PM EST up reply actions
I assume you’ve never played whiffle ball. Great way to learn howta hit a curve.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Played a lot of backyard baseball. Mostly learned about running, i.e., when the ball would hit a neighbor’s house, which didn’t usually take long.
by Jay on Jan 1, 2010 1:40 AM EST up reply actions
You can develop basic football skills with two guys and a ball
Marone! The basic football skills are not throwing and catching the ball. Only one guy outta 22 throws it and only five outta 22 should be catching it. Blocking and tackling are the two basic football skills. And I wouldn’t recommend doing either without wearing about 250 bucks worth of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
But those aren’t what pull kids in. Two kids with a ball can play enough “football” to get themselves interested. Six kids with a ball can play a full on game. Everyone plays pick up tackle football without pads, the basic skills of the game are established (or can be) without ever setting foot on an actual field. It’s the refining (blocking, route running) that comes along after the kids have already established their interest.
I don’t buy this. It’s easier today, in terms of space and available diamonds, to play baseball or softball in the city of Cleveland or Chicago or Los Angeles, than ever before. The population density of Cleveland has to be about half what it was in Tris Speaker’s day.
Watch a basketball hoop on a city playground. There are enough guys playing and waiting to play to field a nine-on-nine baseball or softball team.
I think kids are afraid of the ball—I know I was when I played—and don’t see the value of learning how to play the game. Hitting or pitching is a lot harder than being a fat offensive lineman or power forward. If you have the athletic aptitude you can play above the rim without too much work, but you won’t be able to hit (or throw) a curveball without a lot of practice. Even if you’re talented.
Something else is going on here. It’s not simply a matter of convenience. Football is cool, and basketball is the game of choice. But baseball was a popular game among African Americans in the 1970s.
Population density has nothing do with it. Are you from the Cleveland/Akron area? Drive through the downtown and central city areas and tell me how many baseball diamonds you see as compared to basketball hoops. The areas to play the game may, conceivably, be there, but they aren’t being used for baseball. It’s a game for the suburbs now.
Yeah, the population may not be there but the abandoned builders are. And even if you live in a city with fields it is tough to use them. I grew up on the westside and the fields would be open for anyone to use but we’d always get kicked off by some douche because we didn’t have a permit. So while I had 10 some baseball fields in my city I still had to learn how to play the game in parking lots or at fields with tennis balls because hardballs and softballs were against city ordinance to use.
Yes, I am from Cleveland.
I think you’re confusing cause and effect. To note it’s a game for the suburbs now is just another way of saying it has a low participation rate among African Americans.
I think a city environment has not become less friendly to baseball than it was 80 years ago, when people played the game. The lack of people playing is not caused by the urban environment. People played the game more—despite the complications of fielding a team, equipment, etc.—in the 1970s, despite these difficulties.
Something has happened to make the game less desirable to many African Americans.
This is anecdotal, but I know a (minority) kid from Brooklyn who plays club baseball. He says that baseball is plenty popular in Brooklyn, especially among Latin players. Hell wasn’t Manny Ramirez practically born and raised in the Manhattan?
I think a city environment has not become less friendly to baseball than it was 80 years ago, when people played the game. The lack of people playing is not caused by the urban environment. People played the game more—despite the complications of fielding a team, equipment, etc.—in the 1970s, despite these difficulties.
This is all opinion that is being drawn outside the fact. The city environment decidedly is less friendly to baseball now. There is no other way of seeing the issue. Inner-city is not a place to play baseball right now. The time, money, and facilities are all located in the suburbs. That’s all there is to it.
This is all opinion that is being drawn outside the fact.
You need to check yourself here fwembt. The City of Cleveland has a large and expansive list of sponsored baseball activities.
Here’s an incomplete list of Cleveland Parks with baseball fields:
Lonnie Burten 2511 East 46th
Central 2526 Central
Cudell 1910 West Blvd
Estabrook 4125 Fulton
Fairfax 2355 East 82nd
Glenville 680 East 113th
Halloran Park 3550 W. 117th
Ken Johnson 9206 Woodland
Sterling 1380 E. 32nd
Michael Zone 6301 Lorain
They’ve got organized programs too like: Rookie League, T-Ball, Little F Baseball, Mickey Mantle Baseball, and Connie Mack Baseball. BTW, Little F is so old that even I played and that program – Class F too. And to my surprise they also have a rather extensive and robust soccer program also.
Now I’ll admit it’s been almost two years since I’ve been home and maybe three since I played in a pick-up game at Morgana Park on the corner of E65th and Broadway just up the street from Karbs – great burgers! – but I’m pretty sure that’s still there as well as the ball diamond at Gunning Park and the one at Brookside Recreation. Like I said, it’s been awhile but isn’t there still a ball diamond down by the zoo? and – this is probably a stretch – one under what used to be the Harvard/Denison Bridge.
I remember playing baseball in Cleveland in dozens of various ad hoc diamonds set up in parking and vacant lots all over town. W43re offa Fulton, the parking lot at Blessed Sacrament (BTW BSCC had a full basketball court in the basement complete with a 12 foot ceiling and four large, stout support columns in the court) Tremont Park, Lincoln Park, Regent Playground, Kinsbury Run, CWRU at the old Browns practice field, Edgewater Park, Gordon Park and quite a few other places.
Tell you what fwembt, next time I’m in Cleveland we’ll grab a case of LaBatt’s and drive around Cleveland and drink a beer at every ball diamond we find. I’ll bet we run outta beer before we run outta ball diamonds.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
You named ten baseball fields for a metropolis of over 400,000 people, forgive me for being unimpressed.
Yeah, but he lives in Hawaii! Imagine how many he could name if he actually lived in Cleveland.
by Jay on Jan 4, 2010 9:44 PM EST up reply actions
The areas to play the game may, conceivably, be there, but they aren’t being used for baseball.
That’s what I said yesterday, and I stand by that. There are not many places that are being used exclusively for baseball the way every YMCA or street corner is used for basketball. Again, the interest in the game, and the opportunities to play it, are not as prevalent in downtown Cleveland as they are in Hudson.
fwembt, where in Cleveland do you live? There are not only baseball fields, but also empty lots everywhere. And remember – we have an empty former pro-stadium rotting away in Huff!
Dough!
I know he can spell it. We hadda drive through it every other day of our young lives.
There are plenty of places to ball play in the city proper, and critical masses of young people in many places. It may be that Cleveland and our cities in general produce fewer ballplayers than we’d expect. I don’t know, but I might care. It’s not like nobody plays, or that baseball is terminally dead in cities. Anyone ever take a look at Caracas in google earth?
Ah, I meant to put part of what I said to Chuck up here. I actually live In Akron and work in the whole Cleveland/Akron area. In the five minutes I drive before I get to 77, I pass four baseball complexes, when I get to the downtown area of either city, the areas that could be used for baseball are not nearly so prevalent and available.
Jay, don’t stop these guys. There on a roll with this whole “naming places I’ve seen to play baseball” as opposed to, oh I don’t know, any reasonable approach.
You can’t be serious that you need my help. You and Chuck are both very smart guys. You could probably start with googling “Youth Baseball In Cleveland” and trying to get a total enrollment number and then doing something similar for surrounding suburbs. Or, if you really cared, I’m sure you could just call the office of whoever’s organizing youth baseball in Cleveland or in surrounding areas.
And if you don’t really want to do that, which I doubt anyone does, then it makes a lot more sense to say “Well, we don’t know the numbers and until someone shows them to us, we’ll just have to shrug” than it does to try to count up the baseball fields you each remember seeing one time.
This showed itself within about 90 seconds. That’s the “rec centers” listed by the organization that runs RBI in Cleveland, it appears. So, I’m guessing that’s at least a partial list of fields that youths play on in Cleveland.
And this shows up easily as well:
A total of $125,000 has been donated to the Cleveland Baseball Federation, America’s oldest youth-service organization dedicated to sports and offers free baseball and softball for more than 5,000 kids in Cleveland. The Indians’ organization has now donated more than $2.1 million dollars to the Reviving Baseball in Inner Cities and youth baseball programs since its partnership.
So, assuming that’s an upfudge of numbers and there’s some softball in there, you can probably say that around 4,000 boys played baseball in Cleveland’s RBI program in the summer of 2008, when that was published.
I can’t imagine it would be hard to find the numbers for the suburbs. I just don’t care.
Because I started all this and because I dragged a moderator or two into it, I felt compelled to at least look up the numbers for the suburbs. I’ll present them with no comment.
Stow- 825 (population: 32,000)
Hudson- 1,000 (population: 23,000)
Bedford- 465 (population: 14,000)
Shaker Heights- 850 (population: 29,000)
And there’s that.
See Andrew I don’t believe that the number of kids in an organized program is the crux of the issue. BTW, I got the list of 10 ball park’s from the website in your post. And it’s not about which sport has the highest earning potential. After all baseball is far and away ahead of football in that area. There’s something else and, I believe, something that does not readily avail itself to any numeric evaluation. I can’t put my finger on it, but it’s not about facilities or the cost. Any field you can play football on is big enough for a kid’s baseball game. And if was just limited to that, soccer would be much, much more populare.
Nope, it’s something that’s mostly societal and less about economics. That’s what I believe anyway.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
And if was just limited to that, soccer would be much, much more populare.
It is among kids for many of the same reasons football or basketball are. You only need two people and a small space to play.
I suggest that you not present an anecdotal approach in a manner that implies it’s a solid argument.
by Jay on Jan 5, 2010 2:54 PM EST up reply actions
I suggest people not take illustrations that are obviously anecdotal as intended to convey a solid argument. Clearly, I don’t drive every single city block of Cleveland. I merely said that, on my drive, the areas for baseball in the inner city aren’t as prevalent.
This is all beside the point anyway. I think the general idea is that we all agree baseball isn’t a big inner city draw, we just don’t agree as to why.
Except your reasons are pretty easily refutable. Where were the diamonds in the 1920s? Diamonds don’t make people play baseball. People playing baseball make diamonds.
No, diamonds are forever.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 7, 2010 6:25 AM EST up reply actions
Actually I listed ten and I named more like twenty.
Tell you what, name me 20 football fields in Cleveland proper? And we’ll still do the case of LaBatt’s thing next time I go home. One case for you and one case for me. We’ll still run outta beer – on the East Side alone – before we run outta ball diamonds.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
The areas to play the game may, conceivably, be there, but they aren’t being used for baseball
Is this that hard to grasp? Baseball is no longer a major inner city sport. The areas that are there are not being used for baseball. I know there are empty lots, or fields, or whatever where kids could play, but they aren’t. Please, present me with a good case that baseball is alive and well in the inner city anywhere in America.
If I’m reading you right you’re saying that there are economic and facility barriers. I think it’s cultural and by that I mean that football and baseketball players are viewed as more “macho” which, I believe, makes the games more attractive to disadvantaged kids. Whatever, either position has merit. Bottom line: fewer ML ball players coming out of the inner cities.
Here in Maui we don’t have either the economic or cultural issues. We’ve got two guys in the majors – Shane Victorino and Kurt Suzuki – and one guy in AAA who may get a call up this year – I’m forgetting his name but I think it’s Takase. We’ve got only one NFL player currently playing – Kaluka Maiava – and he has the unenvyable luck to be playing for the Browns.
But I get it, there’s fewer kids coming out of my home town playing ML ball. But then again there’s been damn few in the last 30 years that’s made it to the Bigs from Cleveland.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Who was the last African American baseball player to come out of Cleveland? I can’t think of one. Mike Easler?
I don’t think macho is the right word for it. Baseball is seen, I think, as country. Which means unsophisticated, for rubes.
A previous generation of players like Ken Griffey Sr., Bill Madlock, Al Oliver came from small towns. Maybe that has something to do with its reception.
Big-city players (Kirby Puckett, Darryl Strawberry, Curt Granderson, James Loney) aren’t making enough of an impression, maybe.
Plus, a good athlete can be three years removed from the playground to payday with basketball, but not in baseball.
Plus, a good athlete can be three years removed from the playground to payday with basketball, but not in baseball.
I think we are starting to get to the heart of it here. Baseball requires years of training and refinement whereas a terrific athlete can be better at basketball a lot sooner. Just height or leaping ability alone can make someone the best player on the playground.
It’s a little disingenuous to suggest that getting to the very top level of basketball is as simple as being very athletic or being the best player on the playground. Look at Earl Manigault. It takes those same years of training and refinement to be a good basketball player.
I do think contributes to the desire to play basketball at the lower level though. Dominating an open gym can be as simple as being the only guy who can dunk.
Sure, but he’s probably four years from getting into heavy money.
But football players have to do the four-year college thing, so…
It appears to be something that would never fly with the MLBPA. Do NBA rookies make more than MLB rookies? It seems you can start making real money sooner as an NBA player, but this rookie scale is news to me.
You’re barking up the wrong tree and there’s an implication in this particular comment thread about how baseball is a “more hard work” or something that I just think is flat wrong.
First of all, here’s the NBA Rookie Scale. And that’s it and that’s all. The #1 pick in the NBA draft will make about what Strasburg is going to make, albeit in one less year.
The bigger difference is that more players in baseball have an opportunity to sign for guaranteed money-look at all those slots for the 2nd and 3rd rounds. If you’re drafted in there, you can have that money in your pocket in most cases. If you’re not one of the top 30 picks in the NBA draft, however, teams can offer you whatever they want and they don’t have to guarantee it.
So, only 30 guys have a real shot at good money in the NBA draft. Over a hundred guys do in MLB, maybe more.
Of course, if you’re a good basketball player, it’s almost preferable to get drafted in the 2nd round, sign a cheap 1 or 2 year deal and then become a free agent sooner and get you’re payday.
And, the other big point here, is that if you’re a great athlete, I’d say you’re probably best off in baseball-far, far more jobs than American pro basketball and far, far safer than American pro football.
There are only something like 400 pro basketball players in the NBA; there are about 750 players in the MLB. And you guys are claiming that most great athletes choose basketball-so of course you’d go baseball, where the math is in your favor.
Of course, these kids don’t run this mental math. They play basketball because it’s much cheaper, much more attuned to their desires to run, jump and sweat (to actually get exercise), and a lot more fun to watch on TV for an ADD addled generation.
(1) There’s that whole racist thing that says black athletes are “naturally gifted” and white athletes are hard-working gritty scrappers. I don’t think that’s an issue here, though I think the skills required for baseball are an entry barrier for all kids, black and white.
(2) The NBA rookie slots is just boring. My point was that Strasburg gets a nice signing bonus—not enough to set him up for life, but nice—and then has to wait a couple years in the bushes, and then three years before he can get arbitration. Paydays take longer in baseball. A good NBA player can be making real money three years out of high school, I think.
(3) The ADD thing sounds like it has some truth to it. Basketball ain’t cheaper than baseball. (How much does a glove and bat and ball cost? Not much more than shoes and a basketball.) Is schoolyard basketball that much more exercise than baseball? I guess it is, but significantly so?
I think you’re not grasping the bonus situation. Strasburg gets $15 million guaranteed, right now.
I agree, however, that it’s not really about earning potential, which is a remote and abstract possibility. What it’s really about is what game captures the imagination at a very early age. I think we’d find that virtually no major leaguers started playing the game in their teens. The skill development is just too hard to start that late.
So the question becomes, what game is drawing the attention of boys in elementary school and middle school? Again, this is what differentiates the Dominican — where nobody can afford squat by the way — from any inner city in America. It’s kids, young kids, playing baseball all day, every day.
by Jay on Jan 6, 2010 4:51 PM EST up reply actions
You’re right about bonuses. I know nothing about them. So certain star baseball players make a lot of money right out of high school. Most players probably get, say, a half million bonus. And then a few years in the boonies riding buses.
But I don’t think that is a consideration for a gifted 12-year-old African American kid. He wants to play at the sport that is most interesting to him.
And you do have to commit to years of play in order to succeed, but you don’t mind doing that if the game captures your attention.
It captures the attentions of kids in the DR and Venezuela and Cuba, but not so much kids in the U.S., urban or suburban.
That’s baffling. I can’t imagine playing basketball if I had a choice to play baseball.
Wait… you mean it’s not because of well-funded programs? Coaching camps? Expensive equipment? Effective ad slogans???
Snarkiness aside, and not trying to be a jerk to Turk, it’s probably a good thing that people voiced these alternative conspiracy theories about why certain demographics prefer certain sports. But there is really only one answer to the question: Why do we play what we play? Culture. Your culture is shaped by your circumstances and the reverse is true as well. What sport you like probably is defined by your area code – not necessarily by the geography of where you were raised so much as the collective cultural choices your home town/city/region makes for its residents.
The ole’ argument switcheroo eh, fwembt? You said it was space and capacity that kept inner-city kids away from the sport. Now you agree that the space and fields are there, but they just aren’t playing anyway. Which is exactly what Chuck has been saying the whole time.
I might agree with the last sentence, but when were places in cities used exclusively for baseball? Certainly not when baseball was king, in the 1910s and 1920s and 1930s.
Think about what the city looked like when Big Ed Delahanty went to Central High School. There weren’t any ball diamonds, vacant lots (nowhere near as many), YMCAs. Population density was far higher then, and everyone played baseball.
It’s not a function of facilities. The facilities weren’t there back when everybody was playing baseball.
What is this “Karbs” you speak of?
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jan 6, 2010 8:48 AM EST up reply actions
It’s a bar on E65th St where all the softball players usta hang out after the games at Morgana Park.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Is it still there? The only place’s I know on 65th near there are MJ’s and the Red Chimney. I’m always looking for a good burger.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jan 6, 2010 4:11 PM EST up reply actions
Sure it’s still there Look familar? Now Lemon’s – right up the street – is gone, but Karb’s is still there. BTW, the Chimney is strictly for breakfast.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Yup. It looks familiar, but the sign reads “MJ’s” over the door. I’ll have to investigate the burgers.
Not much of a breakfast fan, but I like the schnitzel at the Red Chimney.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jan 6, 2010 6:17 PM EST up reply actions
Oh, yeah, and one other thing: not all of the black folks are in Cleveland proper and all the white kids in the suburbs. The town I spent my high school years in, Maple Hts., is now predominately black. So is Oakwood and Warrensville Hts – were I played American Legion ball and my where my Uncle Earl built the ball park on what was then the Sohio Research Center. Many of the once violently, lily-white suburbs – like Parma and Euclid and Bedford and Mayfield Hts, – have a large and growing African-American community.
There’s lots of places and opportunities for minority kids to play baseball – if they wanted to.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Yeah but a lot of black kids want to grow up to be Dwyane Wade, but not a lot of black kids want to grow up to be … Curtis Granderson? CC Sabathia?
MLB does a lousy job of marketing individual talents, whereas that’s all the NBA ever does, and the NFL has a few select players who are everywhere you look.
I've really got to change my signature.
I really think a part of it might be the NBA and NFL’s exceptional commitment to charity and inner-city volunteerism. Maybe MLB does some good stuff (RBI?) but you hardly hear about it. You can’t watch a single NBA broadcast without seeing at least a couple “NBA Cares” vignettes.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
Basketball is just as appealing to farmboys as it is inner-city kids. Basketball is appealing for the same reasons to the rest of the world as it is to America.
And you think this is because of an ad campaign? Outreach? Lol.
I have no idea what your point about farmboys has to do with anything I said. I don’t think it’s a stretch to think that poor, inner city kids and their families see the NBA as a league that cares more about them than MLB.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
You think inner city families think the NBA cares about them? That’s a laugh. Does the NBA care when kids get shot for their shoes? Can any of them even afford to see a game?
by Jay on Jan 5, 2010 2:07 PM EST up reply actions
Here’s my theory. Baseball is just not viewed as “macho” by African-Americas – there I said it. As a result there’s less peer rescpect for baseball than for football and basketball. Of course school support – as fwembt mentioned – is another key. But one begets the other. If baseball were as popular it too would recieve more focus.
And about the fear thing odradek, you need to recall what it was like to be the isolated LB in the “B” gap with a 220 lb. FB coming at you with a full head of stream followed by a 200 lb RB knowing that you were about to be hit by both. That’ll make you wanna revisit your recreational activity choices.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
There is definitely a perception issue going on here. It is similar to the perception that a lot of people have with soccer. Less macho, less interesting, whatever it may be.
I could see someone saying soccer is less interesting, but baseball? It’s the most interesting sport of them all, and I say that objectively (I think).
I could also see someone say soccer is less macho, but baseball has that ball.
Baseball is slow-paced and methodical. And boring to a whole host of people who would rather run the floor and jump or plow into people.
I've really got to change my signature.
I could see someone saying soccer is less interesting, but baseball? It’s the most interesting sport of them all, and I say that objectively (I think).
Again, I disagree. Soccer is far more interesting to me and, apparently, most of the world.
I think the appeal of baseball is in its inherent ability to analyzed. In most other sports the game hinges on the action of a player at a certain time (Chris Webber, for instance). In baseball the strategy of the game takes more of a forefront than just the consistent action.
Gross!
I could understand wanting to watch a fast-paced game – let’s say an individual football game – over an individual baseball game.
But you think soccer is a more interesting sport, as a whole, than baseball? Are you joking????
There’s an element I mentioned that I feel is being overlooked: baseball is not terribly good exercise, especially for young kids. Most young men really, really like to exercise-and not just in some “P.E. teach makes me” kind of way. They love to run around and scream. My students literally walk out class and run to the opposite end of the field next to school and back when they’re antsy. I’m fine with it. It’s developmentally important.
Baseball is stimulating for a variety of reasons but it’s low man on the totem when it comes to a basic exercise-as-outlet need.
To put another way, I can see a kid being drawn to basketball just because but baseball? You need a decent reason-you love to watch the game, or your dad is teaching you the game, or whatever. And those reasons don’t exist for most young kids in cities.
Sports are the ultimate expression of a meritocracy. If you can help the team win, you play. If you can’t, you don’t.
Not to lead this more off topic, but same thing with the Rooney Rule.
"I'm a baseball lifer. It's what I do." —Manny Acta
Maybe the number of good things Selig’s done is greater than his failures. But that’s not the point, is it? There’s only one result to judge him on: is there a competitive balance in the league? And maybe one more: what is baseball’s future? And I strongly disagree with fleerdon below. Competitive balance is critical in the long-term viability of baseball.
The bottom line: you’ve seen what last year was like, and it’s pretty simple to predict the next two or three. The Yankees should be good for at least one WS Championship in that period, more likely two and quite possibly three. Is this because of the super-human stewardship of Mr. Cashman? the Stienbrenner “Will to Win”? the Yankee mystique? No, it’s all about money. In the end this is what gonna kill the sport I love. And Selig will have no small part in it’s death.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Dec 31, 2009 12:58 AM EST up reply actions 4 recs
And one more thing. If you think that establishing a level playing field in baseball is too much to ask of one man, remember they paid that stunod $18M in 2007. That’s a lotta gelt for a guy who reached his talent limit selling used cars.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Dec 31, 2009 1:07 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Hard to believe Stern only makes $10 million; he’s arguably the most successful sports executive of all time.
NHL guy is by far the most overpaid on that list.
This isn’t the place for it, but I would be curious to hear people solicit their thoughts on how to ‘fix’ the NHL.
Or is hockey just un-fixable?
I've really got to change my signature.
I always found the distribution of hockey teams really strange. There were a lot of places that had teams that made no sense to me, whereas Cleveland, which has a considerable youth hockey presence, doesn’t have one.
You’ll probably see the number of pro soccer teams reach zero before pro hockey disappears. And for essentially the same reason – it’s boring and hard to follow on TV.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Soccer is the most popular sport in the world; it isn’t going anywhere. You’d have to have spent the last 200 years under a rock to thing soccer is in any danger of becoming insolvent. Hockey (at least in the USA) is a niche sport with hardly any following.
It maybe the most popular sport in the world but it’s no more than a “niche sport” in America. Like a said before, you wanna make a small fortune offa soccer in America? Then start with a large fortune.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Your semantics are off. Even short-season minor legaue baseball is professional baseball.
You might say our soccer is not “major league” or “world class,” but it is “professional” by any normal definition.
by Jay on Jan 4, 2010 5:33 PM EST up reply actions
characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession
I was trying to, apparently a bit too subtly, intimate that the MLS fails to live up to the standards of the profession. It was an admittedly obtuse attempt.
Or Seattle Sounders fans, those fans are pros and they’ve only got one season under their belt!
The MLS is a bit sad though. I only watched one game last year, so maybe that’s not enough of a sample to declare the whole league pathetic, but it was the championship match. The LA Galaxy faced off against Real Salt Lake (who managed to win the Eastern Conference despite geographic challenges.) It was tie after 2 OTs and decided the worst way—penalty kicks. Landon Donovan, captain of the 2010 US World Cup Team, fooled the keeper but flubbed the kick to lose it for LA.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jan 6, 2010 9:06 AM EST up reply actions
Someone recently told me that hockey has really been helped by HDTV. The game is actually watchable on television.
Killing the anti-trust exemption would be a nice start to remedy this problem.
I've really got to change my signature.
An interesting aspect of the situation is that the exemption does not extend to media rights. What this means is that the Indians have the right, for example, to sell broadcast rights to Indians-Yankees games to any cable network in New York City. The only thing preventing is MLB territorial broadcast rights, and that part of the MLB general agreement is clearly illegal under anti-trust law.
by Jay on Jan 1, 2010 1:43 AM EST up reply actions
One of Craig’s comments pointed me to this poll.
Subject of a future article (or book?) … widespread disaffectation of baseball fans in the wake of Yankees championship was evident all over the internet, and in the above poll, but there was virtually no mainstream coverage of that fact. At the same time, there were literally hundreds of hagiographic articles celebrating the Yankees, despite the fact that over 90% of all baseball fans were disappointed by their victory.
What does it mean?
Theory no. 1: It may be as simple as the complaint you often hear about the rest of the mainstream media: can’t see past the Boroughs. Well, hey, I think if you wanted to hide from a NYC-based sportswriter, Staten Island might be far enough away.
Theory no. 2: There are fewer and fewer publications every year. It’s a lot cheaper to have a staff writer bang out a traveling-company edition of something he read in S.I. than it is to pay good freelancers, or to send your writers out for compelling original pieces. What if the economy has turned the sports media into a giant echo chamber?
by fleerdon on Dec 28, 2009 8:30 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Citi Field All-Star game has finally been made official for 2013
- Brett Lawrie receives four-game suspension, fined for ‘aggressive actions’ toward umpire
- PNC Park security guard loses finger in struggle with fan during Pirates game
- Create-a-Caption: Partying like it’s 1988
- The Ron Washington puppet is watching you while you sleep — and has possibly jinxed the Rangers
