Is anybody else ecstatic, that the Red Sox might not .. - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Is anybody else ecstatic, that the Red Sox might not ..

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby lesgrant » Fri Sep 30, 2005 12:09 pm

Mookie4ever wrote:
Yoda wrote:
George_Foreman wrote:7-time batting champ and 3-time MVP and he is inarguably inferior to matsui? wow.

i wouldn't know where to start looking for their stats from japan. could anyone more knowledgible post a link?

edit: is this kinda like trying to argue about whether mcgwire or jeter was more popular c. 1998-1999?


Matsui also won 3 MVPs and just missed the triple crown one season. He was also the second youngest player in Japanese history to reach 250. His HR pace hastened when he hit 50 in his final year in Japan. He was intentionally walked 5 times in a game.

Played 1250 straight games, 3 HR crowns entering his peak and 9 straight AS appearances. He didn't get his nickname for nothing.

http://japanesebaseball.com/players/pla ... ayerID=163


Not to take sides or anything but you know that Shingo Takatsu is the all-time saves leader in Japan don't you? Maybe that tells you something about the quality of the pitching.

Also I think that he got his nickname because of his appearance more than anything else. The guy is pretty ugly you must admit.


If you are facing anyone who is the all time leader in any statistic, chances are you are facing that player at the end of his career -- not in his prime. So what you're dealing with isn't representative of thier true abilities.

And how can you be taking sides when Ichiro made his living off of the same pitching?

BTW Godzilla got his nickname because of his bad acne. Then it carried over to baseball because Hideki was by far the tallest kid in school.

And since everyone is blowing smoke over who's greater -- Hideki was so good at the plate, his baseball league in junior high made him turn around and bat left handed so as to level the playing field. He throws and writes right, but bats left.

But back on topic -- the Yankees not making the playoffs (in favor of someone like the Mariners or the Devil Rays or the Rangers or the Indians ) would be bad for baseball.

The same argument Britsox uses to justify a small market team (real fans will tune in anyway) can be applied to justify the Yankees. Besides, it's not the real fans who make a difference in profitability. It's the casual fan - the person who's interested when his team is good. And the bigger the market, the more casual fans there are and the more viewers baseball stands to win or lose. It's a matter of simple numbers. Every league's success hinges upon the success of its big market franchises in NY, LA or Chicago.

Yankees / Red Sox is what's good for baseball right about now. There is no other matchup in the game today that generates as much exitement. To deny the obvious is pure envy.
Image
lesgrant
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 705
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Yoda » Fri Sep 30, 2005 12:28 pm

lesgrant wrote:
Yankees / Red Sox is what's good for baseball right about now. There is no other matchup in the game today that generates as much exitement. To deny the obvious is pure envy.


Exactly. I couldn't ask for anything more as a baseball fan than a Red Sox/Yankees series in the last weekend of the season with playoffs on the line.

As much as I hate the Red Sox, there is nothing more exciting to watch the two go at it in the post season. I hope both teams make the playoffs so I can keep enjoying this match up.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." ~George Carlin
Yoda
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 21344
Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: 15th green...

Postby BritSox » Fri Sep 30, 2005 12:55 pm

Yoda wrote:
lesgrant wrote:
Yankees / Red Sox is what's good for baseball right about now. There is no other matchup in the game today that generates as much exitement. To deny the obvious is pure envy.


Exactly. I couldn't ask for anything more as a baseball fan than a Red Sox/Yankees series in the last weekend of the season with playoffs on the line.

As much as I hate the Red Sox, there is nothing more exciting to watch the two go at it in the post season. I hope both teams make the playoffs so I can keep enjoying this match up.


True, but if there weren't a danger of one or other team missing the playoffs, this series wouldn't be exciting. I'd agree that a completely sucky Yanks team would be bad for the game (well, maybe not it if were only one season. But for a prolonged period, yeah).

What's good for attracting new fans to a sport is excitement and unpredictability. It's not like people around the world have been short of opportunities to have their attention grabbed by the Yankees in the postseason.
Image
BritSox
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicMock(ing) DrafterLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5223
Joined: 5 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: You don't care, do you? No... because you're unconscious.

Postby Matthias » Fri Sep 30, 2005 1:19 pm

hm. does that theory (put in the largest-market team) hold water? tough to say. but here's some data for people (as a lawyer and an economist, i like data better than people's opinions).

so we have year, network, rating, and share.
rating being what %age of tv's in america are watching a show.
share being what $age of the tv's in the us that are turned on that are watching a particular show.

1980 NBC 32.8 56 Phillies-Royals
1981 ABC 30.0 49 Dodgers-Yankees
1982 NBC 28.0 49 Cardinals-Brewers
1983 ABC 23.3 41 Phillies-Orioles
1984 NBC 22.9 40 Padres-Tigers
1985 ABC 25.3 39 Cardinals-Royals
1986 NBC 28.6 46 Mets-Red Sox
1987 ABC 24.0 41 Cardinals-Twins
1988 NBC 23.9 39 Dodgers-A's
1989 ABC 16.4 30 Giants-A's
1990 CBS 20.8 36 Reds-A's
1991 CBS 24.0 39 Braves-Twins
1992 CBS 20.2 34 Braves-Jays
1993 CBS 17.3 30 Phillies-Jays
1994 n/a n/a n/a
1995 ABC / NBC 19.5 33 Braves-Indians
1996 FOX 17.4 29 Braves-Yankees
1997 NBC 16.8 29 Marlins-Indians
1998 FOX 14.1 24 Padres-Yankees
1999 NBC 16.0 26 Braves-Yankees
2000 FOX 12.4 21 Mets-Yankees
2001 FOX 15.7 25 D-backs-Yankees
2002 FOX 11.9 20 Giants-Angels
2003 FOX 13.9 25 Marlins-Yankees
2004 FOX 15.8 25 Cardinals-Red Sox

There's a lot of noise in this data. There's the increasing other number of options that lead to declining share in any event (MNF has experienced similar woes); there's the ebbs and flows of baseball popularity in general; there's individual players who people might be excited about; there's differences in length of series, etc., etc, etc.. So this is by no means definitive. And if someone wants to do more with it (compare it to MNF avg rating might be interesting), be my guest. You can also go further back, if you like. But, it at least provides some sort of platform for discussion.

And one thing jumps out at me. And that's that in the last 20 years, there have been two significant drops in world series share. The first occured in 1992-1993 after the Twins-Braves series, which you could maybe chalk up to the next couple involving a Canadian team (only one American city following it closely and these are US ratings) and then the fallout from the '94 work stoppage. And then after that, another falloff after the Yankees started their recent dominance, with the lowest points being the Mets-Yankees and the Giants-Angels, i.e. two teams involved from the same general geographic regions.

So it suggests a couple of things on (very, very rough) analysis: dominance of one team is bad for baseball. World series where only one region of the country is involved is bad for baseball. Big markets being the players aren't necessarily the best for baseball (look at the Braves-Twins #s compared to those around it).

Anyone wants to do more, let's see what we can pull together.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby lesgrant » Fri Sep 30, 2005 8:54 pm

Matthias wrote:hm. does that theory (put in the largest-market team) hold water? tough to say. but here's some data for people (as a lawyer and an economist, i like data better than people's opinions).

so we have year, network, rating, and share.
rating being what %age of tv's in america are watching a show.
share being what $age of the tv's in the us that are turned on that are watching a particular show.

1980 NBC 32.8 56 Phillies-Royals
1981 ABC 30.0 49 Dodgers-Yankees
1982 NBC 28.0 49 Cardinals-Brewers
1983 ABC 23.3 41 Phillies-Orioles
1984 NBC 22.9 40 Padres-Tigers
1985 ABC 25.3 39 Cardinals-Royals
1986 NBC 28.6 46 Mets-Red Sox
1987 ABC 24.0 41 Cardinals-Twins
1988 NBC 23.9 39 Dodgers-A's
1989 ABC 16.4 30 Giants-A's
1990 CBS 20.8 36 Reds-A's
1991 CBS 24.0 39 Braves-Twins
1992 CBS 20.2 34 Braves-Jays
1993 CBS 17.3 30 Phillies-Jays
1994 n/a n/a n/a
1995 ABC / NBC 19.5 33 Braves-Indians
1996 FOX 17.4 29 Braves-Yankees
1997 NBC 16.8 29 Marlins-Indians
1998 FOX 14.1 24 Padres-Yankees
1999 NBC 16.0 26 Braves-Yankees
2000 FOX 12.4 21 Mets-Yankees
2001 FOX 15.7 25 D-backs-Yankees
2002 FOX 11.9 20 Giants-Angels
2003 FOX 13.9 25 Marlins-Yankees
2004 FOX 15.8 25 Cardinals-Red Sox

There's a lot of noise in this data. There's the increasing other number of options that lead to declining share in any event (MNF has experienced similar woes); there's the ebbs and flows of baseball popularity in general; there's individual players who people might be excited about; there's differences in length of series, etc., etc, etc.. So this is by no means definitive. And if someone wants to do more with it (compare it to MNF avg rating might be interesting), be my guest. You can also go further back, if you like. But, it at least provides some sort of platform for discussion.

And one thing jumps out at me. And that's that in the last 20 years, there have been two significant drops in world series share. The first occured in 1992-1993 after the Twins-Braves series, which you could maybe chalk up to the next couple involving a Canadian team (only one American city following it closely and these are US ratings) and then the fallout from the '94 work stoppage. And then after that, another falloff after the Yankees started their recent dominance, with the lowest points being the Mets-Yankees and the Giants-Angels, i.e. two teams involved from the same general geographic regions.

So it suggests a couple of things on (very, very rough) analysis: dominance of one team is bad for baseball. World series where only one region of the country is involved is bad for baseball. Big markets being the players aren't necessarily the best for baseball (look at the Braves-Twins #s compared to those around it).

Anyone wants to do more, let's see what we can pull together.


Excellent numbers. Thanks for the research.

However I totally disagree with your analysis (so please don’t try and kick that data vs. opinion crap as if you’re not living in pure subjectivity yourself).

The one thing that you are not factoring in is that the Braves are, in reality, a big market team. Their games are broadcast nationally and their fan/viewer base is significantly larger than other smaller market teams like Cincinnati or KC or, in this case, San Diego.

In that light, the decline during the Yankee dynasty is correlated to market size vs. the Yankees. Your assertion that the decline (beyond the “noise”) is due to waning interest in a dominant team runs into trouble in 1999, when there is a spike upwards. The Braves simply have a larger fan base than the Padres to draw viewers from. It’s a simple and direct correlation. It’s not rocket science, just Marketing 101.

However I do agree that the same region teams (Yanks vs Mets, Giants vs. A’s) will always draw near the bottom.

But I have a problem with just focusing on WS ratings as a sole indicator upon which to draw the admittedly rough conclusions you drew. While the national TV contract is a huge component of revenue, there are also the local numbers, box office, merchandise, etc. Moreover, baseball is an everyday game. Those who tune into playoffs, in general, are not representative of day-to-day interest in the game. The day to day revenue over the course of the season drives baseball's bottom line. I would at least be interested in comparing the 2004 and 2005 ALCS numbers with the WS numbers from those years. For me, the Marlins were an afterthought after Boone’s homerun.

Another issue you touched on was concerning superstars and big market teams. I would throw out:

Is baseball better off with A-rod in New York or would it be better off with him in Texas? Not just in terms of draw for the championship series, I’m talking on an overall, day-to-day basis. Could he sell more Rangers jerseys or NY Yankee jerseys? Does he sell more tickets as a Yankee or a Ranger? Does he make more money for MLB in a Rangers’ uniform or in a Yankee uniform? The answer should be obvious, especially to an economist.

Would baseball have been better off if Babe Ruth stayed in Boston? Would he have been in a position to save the game from the 1919 Black Sox scandal if he wasn’t playing on the biggest stage in sports? He was a HOFer in Boston, but he transcended the sport in NY, and he did it in a stadium that only a large market could support.

The main reason why you have nothing to substantiate any assertion that the Yankee dominance is bad for the game is because they’ve dominated for so long and in so many different eras.

Yes, the Yankees are popular because they have so many iconographic players which leads them to be in playoffs frequently, which attracts more fans, which and so on and so on. But it’s the way it’s almost always been. There never has been any other balance of power in MLB as you know it. In the late 80’s when they sucked, the Mets filled in with Straw, Doc, Hernandez, drama, etc.

The real irony is that the owners like this way. The Yankees subsidize many teams via revenue sharing and payroll tax. Smaller market teams would rather play (and presumably lose to, according to the payroll theory) the Yankees than beat up on other smaller market teams. The Yanks represent the biggest box office and TV draw they have all season. The Yankees have lead the league in road attendance over the past several seasons. This year they trail Boston slightly but could surpass them over the weekend.

The Yankees have been a primary economic driver of MLB in the 20th century. There is no evidence to support any contention that baseball would be better off if they did not dominate. The only segment that would be better off are those that root for teams that the Yankees beat up on. If you want to hate, then hate. Don’t try to pass it off as logic or science.
Image
lesgrant
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 705
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby El Gaupo » Sun Oct 02, 2005 8:44 pm

lesgrant wrote:
Matthias wrote:hm. does that theory (put in the largest-market team) hold water? tough to say. but here's some data for people (as a lawyer and an economist, i like data better than people's opinions).

so we have year, network, rating, and share.
rating being what %age of tv's in america are watching a show.
share being what $age of the tv's in the us that are turned on that are watching a particular show.

1980 NBC 32.8 56 Phillies-Royals
1981 ABC 30.0 49 Dodgers-Yankees
1982 NBC 28.0 49 Cardinals-Brewers
1983 ABC 23.3 41 Phillies-Orioles
1984 NBC 22.9 40 Padres-Tigers
1985 ABC 25.3 39 Cardinals-Royals
1986 NBC 28.6 46 Mets-Red Sox
1987 ABC 24.0 41 Cardinals-Twins
1988 NBC 23.9 39 Dodgers-A's
1989 ABC 16.4 30 Giants-A's
1990 CBS 20.8 36 Reds-A's
1991 CBS 24.0 39 Braves-Twins
1992 CBS 20.2 34 Braves-Jays
1993 CBS 17.3 30 Phillies-Jays
1994 n/a n/a n/a
1995 ABC / NBC 19.5 33 Braves-Indians
1996 FOX 17.4 29 Braves-Yankees
1997 NBC 16.8 29 Marlins-Indians
1998 FOX 14.1 24 Padres-Yankees
1999 NBC 16.0 26 Braves-Yankees
2000 FOX 12.4 21 Mets-Yankees
2001 FOX 15.7 25 D-backs-Yankees
2002 FOX 11.9 20 Giants-Angels
2003 FOX 13.9 25 Marlins-Yankees
2004 FOX 15.8 25 Cardinals-Red Sox

There's a lot of noise in this data. There's the increasing other number of options that lead to declining share in any event (MNF has experienced similar woes); there's the ebbs and flows of baseball popularity in general; there's individual players who people might be excited about; there's differences in length of series, etc., etc, etc.. So this is by no means definitive. And if someone wants to do more with it (compare it to MNF avg rating might be interesting), be my guest. You can also go further back, if you like. But, it at least provides some sort of platform for discussion.

And one thing jumps out at me. And that's that in the last 20 years, there have been two significant drops in world series share. The first occured in 1992-1993 after the Twins-Braves series, which you could maybe chalk up to the next couple involving a Canadian team (only one American city following it closely and these are US ratings) and then the fallout from the '94 work stoppage. And then after that, another falloff after the Yankees started their recent dominance, with the lowest points being the Mets-Yankees and the Giants-Angels, i.e. two teams involved from the same general geographic regions.

So it suggests a couple of things on (very, very rough) analysis: dominance of one team is bad for baseball. World series where only one region of the country is involved is bad for baseball. Big markets being the players aren't necessarily the best for baseball (look at the Braves-Twins #s compared to those around it).

Anyone wants to do more, let's see what we can pull together.


Excellent numbers. Thanks for the research.

However I totally disagree with your analysis (so please don’t try and kick that data vs. opinion crap as if you’re not living in pure subjectivity yourself).

The one thing that you are not factoring in is that the Braves are, in reality, a big market team. Their games are broadcast nationally and their fan/viewer base is significantly larger than other smaller market teams like Cincinnati or KC or, in this case, San Diego.

In that light, the decline during the Yankee dynasty is correlated to market size vs. the Yankees. Your assertion that the decline (beyond the “noise”) is due to waning interest in a dominant team runs into trouble in 1999, when there is a spike upwards. The Braves simply have a larger fan base than the Padres to draw viewers from. It’s a simple and direct correlation. It’s not rocket science, just Marketing 101.

However I do agree that the same region teams (Yanks vs Mets, Giants vs. A’s) will always draw near the bottom.

But I have a problem with just focusing on WS ratings as a sole indicator upon which to draw the admittedly rough conclusions you drew. While the national TV contract is a huge component of revenue, there are also the local numbers, box office, merchandise, etc. Moreover, baseball is an everyday game. Those who tune into playoffs, in general, are not representative of day-to-day interest in the game. The day to day revenue over the course of the season drives baseball's bottom line. I would at least be interested in comparing the 2004 and 2005 ALCS numbers with the WS numbers from those years. For me, the Marlins were an afterthought after Boone’s homerun.

Another issue you touched on was concerning superstars and big market teams. I would throw out:

Is baseball better off with A-rod in New York or would it be better off with him in Texas? Not just in terms of draw for the championship series, I’m talking on an overall, day-to-day basis. Could he sell more Rangers jerseys or NY Yankee jerseys? Does he sell more tickets as a Yankee or a Ranger? Does he make more money for MLB in a Rangers’ uniform or in a Yankee uniform? The answer should be obvious, especially to an economist.

Would baseball have been better off if Babe Ruth stayed in Boston? Would he have been in a position to save the game from the 1919 Black Sox scandal if he wasn’t playing on the biggest stage in sports? He was a HOFer in Boston, but he transcended the sport in NY, and he did it in a stadium that only a large market could support.

The main reason why you have nothing to substantiate any assertion that the Yankee dominance is bad for the game is because they’ve dominated for so long and in so many different eras.

Yes, the Yankees are popular because they have so many iconographic players which leads them to be in playoffs frequently, which attracts more fans, which and so on and so on. But it’s the way it’s almost always been. There never has been any other balance of power in MLB as you know it. In the late 80’s when they sucked, the Mets filled in with Straw, Doc, Hernandez, drama, etc.

The real irony is that the owners like this way. The Yankees subsidize many teams via revenue sharing and payroll tax. Smaller market teams would rather play (and presumably lose to, according to the payroll theory) the Yankees than beat up on other smaller market teams. The Yanks represent the biggest box office and TV draw they have all season. The Yankees have lead the league in road attendance over the past several seasons. This year they trail Boston slightly but could surpass them over the weekend.

The Yankees have been a primary economic driver of MLB in the 20th century. There is no evidence to support any contention that baseball would be better off if they did not dominate. The only segment that would be better off are those that root for teams that the Yankees beat up on. If you want to hate, then hate. Don’t try to pass it off as logic or science.



I heard on the local sports radio station here in Washington DC that the redsox were the first team to draw over 4 million on the road. and the Yankees also drew over 3 million at home. imho it's about interest, and drama and the ability for MLB to draw the the non baseball fan to the game. The sox and yankees do this no doubt about it as do east cost west cost finals.
El Gaupo
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 576
Joined: 4 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby wrveres » Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:50 pm

kingctb27 wrote:Well, WR we are in. Pads/Sox WS?


Angels/Padres :-)
wrveres
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe Musketeer
Posts: 31783
(Past Year: 641)
Joined: 2 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby wrveres » Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:55 pm

I'll give Boston their due props on getting the Wild Card.

But ..

The only reason they are in, is because Cleveland ran out of gas. If Cleveland had 120 million to toss at ballplayers, Sox fans would be checking into the emergency rooms right now. :-)

..

..
Just like this Red Bird
v
v
v
v
Last edited by wrveres on Sun Oct 02, 2005 10:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
wrveres
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe Musketeer
Posts: 31783
(Past Year: 641)
Joined: 2 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby jzfran » Sun Oct 02, 2005 10:08 pm

We made it for all you Sox haters out there!
jzfran
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2322
Joined: 4 May 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2015 MLB season starts in 19:05 hours
(and 88 days)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact