Who does more harm: the Steinbrenners or the Lorias? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who does more harm: the Steinbrenners or the Lorias?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Who does more harm?

The Cheapies.
20
53%
The Spendies.
18
47%
 
Total votes : 38

Re: Who does more harm: the Steinbrenners or the Lorias?

Postby AussieDodger » Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:16 pm

KCollins1304 wrote:
AussieDodger wrote:
raiders_umpire wrote:As a fan of one of the cheapie teams, I would say that the cheapies are worse for the sport. Does it suck to see two rivals spend $150 million plus on payroll? Yea it does as a fan of a small market team, but if I were owner and had the cash, I would definitely be putting the best team on the field that I could buy. There is nothing wrong rebuilding a franchise like the Orioles of 08, but by no means should a owner let a franchise and city suffer in the craptacular for many years just to pocket some cash.


I concur doctor. ;-D ;-D

Axing parasitic teams like Yoda said is an interesting idea
I would also like the A's to move to Las Vegas :-D O:-)


They're already moving to Fremont ;-D


Yeah ;-D
I'm not sure that it's set in cement though, and the timeline keeps moving back a year (2010,2011,2012).
A strong and sexy bid from Las Vegas and that could all change.
ATTENTION LONG-TIMERS! NEW FBC: http://fbc2.freeforums.net/
AussieDodger
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle Eye
Posts: 11363
(Past Year: 25)
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: What do you mean, Flash Gordon approaching?

Re: Who does more harm: the Steinbrenners or the Lorias?

Postby Amazinz » Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:48 pm

The Marlins strategy doesn't work. Sure, coupled with some luck, it has achieved two titles but it has done nothing to build the fan base and it has likely alienated the fan base they did have during the first WS run.

Also, I wouldn't hang my hat on mlb attendance. The numbers are manipulated and aren't an actual head count.
Image
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
Amazinz
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 18800
Joined: 16 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: in Canada, toughening up figure skaters

Re: Who does more harm: the Steinbrenners or the Lorias?

Postby Matthias » Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:19 pm

GotowarMissAgnes wrote:Further, your points on revenue are misguided in some respects. Increases in the number of franchises and the subsequent revenue gain are a sign of a sport's ability to capitalizing on its growing popularity. There's no reason to discount that in the assessment. Similarly, stadia and naming rights represent additional signs of a sport's popularity, from both the public sector and the private corporate sector. Government bodies generally try to avoid unpopular moves, and private sponsors generally try to align themselves with popular trends. Thus, I don't see any reason why they are not part of the equation of understanding a sport's popularity. They may not be the best representative of the typical fan's vies of the sport, but, as I've said, there are many aspects to popularity.

Again, not necessarily. It may simply mean that the corporate managers have decided to more greatly exploit the opportunities available to them.

GotowarMissAgnes wrote:I fail to see how my "analysis" of baseball's popularity, based at least on objective data like what people spend their dollars and time on, is poorer than your analysis, which relies primarily on what you describe as "your overall impression" based on such highly scientific measures like who you spoke to at the water cooler yesterday.

I understand and appreciate the deficiencies in my method. I don't know if you can say the same.

You're completely flipping around the whole concept of "popularity". You're starting from the point that opinion polls might not be completely credible because people might tell a surveyor one thing but then act on their true preferences as something else and then flipping that to defending any source of revenue as being proof positive of something being popular. Just because a city builds a new stadium where the owners are able to juice the corporate citizens on luxury boxes to a greater extent than they were last year, does not make baseball more popular. It simply means that baseball is becoming better businessmen.

In the Harris poll, 20 years ago football and baseball were tied among people self-reporting their favorite sport. Now football has the edge 33% to 14%. Twenty years ago, the Nielsen ratings for the Super Bowl are approximately equivalent to what they are now but they were twice as high for the World Series as they are now. These are actual popularity numbers. Baseball is losing out.

If you want to include other mind-share numbers like web hits or fantasy leagues or what have you, fine. But the use of revenue as a proxy for popularity is so problematic that I really don't understand why you continue to drag it out and put it on center stage.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


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

Re: Who does more harm: the Steinbrenners or the Lorias?

Postby GotowarMissAgnes » Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:48 am

Amazinz wrote:The Marlins strategy doesn't work. Sure, coupled with some luck, it has achieved two titles but it has done nothing to build the fan base and it has likely alienated the fan base they did have during the first WS run.

Also, I wouldn't hang my hat on mlb attendance. The numbers are manipulated and aren't an actual head count.


Well, it's hard to divorce the Marlins' strategy from the other aspects of its leadership in assessing what alienated the fan base. But, fair enough in that it was glib to say the strategy worked.

All sports attendance numbers are paid, not in the seat. That's a standard convention, not a manipulation.
"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to chase it."
GotowarMissAgnes
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy Expert
Posts: 5516
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Happy Valley

Re: Who does more harm: the Steinbrenners or the Lorias?

Postby GotowarMissAgnes » Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:09 am

Matthias wrote:I understand and appreciate the deficiencies in my method. I don't know if you can say the same.

You're completely flipping around the whole concept of "popularity". You're starting from the point that opinion polls might not be completely credible because people might tell a surveyor one thing but then act on their true preferences as something else and then flipping that to defending any source of revenue as being proof positive of something being popular. Just because a city builds a new stadium where the owners are able to juice the corporate citizens on luxury boxes to a greater extent than they were last year, does not make baseball more popular. It simply means that baseball is becoming better businessmen.

In the Harris poll, 20 years ago football and baseball were tied among people self-reporting their favorite sport. Now football has the edge 33% to 14%. Twenty years ago, the Nielsen ratings for the Super Bowl are approximately equivalent to what they are now but they were twice as high for the World Series as they are now. These are actual popularity numbers. Baseball is losing out.

If you want to include other mind-share numbers like web hits or fantasy leagues or what have you, fine. But the use of revenue as a proxy for popularity is so problematic that I really don't understand why you continue to drag it out and put it on center stage.


You continue to misunderstand. I have no doubt that polls tell the truth about ONE dimenstion of popularity, but they have their own weaknesses. The poll weights completely equally the woman who watches the Superbowl once a year and the guy who has season tickets and goes to every home game. The poll measures nothing about the depth or intensity of interest, which is one thing attendance and revenue capture better. What seems to escape you is that popularity is not a 1-1 identity with the answer to the question, "What is your favorite sport?" That's the ONLY thing the poll shows. It does not show other equally important aspects of popularity, such as how people spend their time and their money or international opinions, or participation in the sport, or web hits, or more. It does not show that the MLB Network launched with 50 million subscribers, while the NFL network languishes with 42 million after 5 years of operation. All of these are undeniably an aspect and/or measure of popularity.

You have yet to offer any credible argument against the use of these other dimensions or measures of popularity. You have yet to offer any credible argument about MLB revenue or attendance, the minor leagues, international aspects of popularity, or really much else. You hang your hat on one poll number, ignoring every other piece of evidence about the comparison between baseball and football. Football is more "popular" than baseball in the sense that more Americans respond to a poll that it is their favorite sport and more people watch it's premier event. It is not more popular in terms of attendance or revenue or web hits cable subscribers or international opinion or a host of other measures and dimensions.
"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to chase it."
GotowarMissAgnes
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy Expert
Posts: 5516
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Happy Valley

Re: Who does more harm: the Steinbrenners or the Lorias?

Postby noseeum » Wed Dec 24, 2008 2:09 pm

Great article in support of the spenders:
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/fil ... _teixeira/

MLB's revenues have been exploding since 2003 and player salaries have simply not matched this increase in revenues. In 2003, players in baseball made 63% of league revenues. In 2008, that number appears to be 52% of league revenues, or less than any of the other major professional leagues in the US, which all have salary caps.


The Yankees do spend more money than other teams in MLB, but the differences would be less drastic if the payrolls of many teams had been rising up to the waves of new cash that have entered baseball in recent years. Going by the NFL formula, very generous considering the MLBPA is far more powerful an entity than any other union in sports, the payroll floor for 2009 would almost certainly be in the $100 million range. 58% of league revenue, as the players in NFL get, would be, in baseball, an average team payroll of a hair under $120 million. It's pretty clear that while the Yankees are outspending everyone comfortably, the rest of baseball has just as much to do with the payroll disparity as the Yankees do.
noseeum
Major League Manager
Major League Manager


Posts: 1697
Joined: 1 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Who does more harm: the Steinbrenners or the Lorias?

Postby Neato Torpedo » Wed Dec 24, 2008 2:12 pm

noseeum wrote:Great article in support of the spenders:
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/fil ... _teixeira/

MLB's revenues have been exploding since 2003 and player salaries have simply not matched this increase in revenues. In 2003, players in baseball made 63% of league revenues. In 2008, that number appears to be 52% of league revenues, or less than any of the other major professional leagues in the US, which all have salary caps.


The Yankees do spend more money than other teams in MLB, but the differences would be less drastic if the payrolls of many teams had been rising up to the waves of new cash that have entered baseball in recent years. Going by the NFL formula, very generous considering the MLBPA is far more powerful an entity than any other union in sports, the payroll floor for 2009 would almost certainly be in the $100 million range. 58% of league revenue, as the players in NFL get, would be, in baseball, an average team payroll of a hair under $120 million. It's pretty clear that while the Yankees are outspending everyone comfortably, the rest of baseball has just as much to do with the payroll disparity as the Yankees do.

*jacks up ticket prices 20%*

"What?"
Image

Rocinante2: you know
Rocinante2: its easy to dismiss the orioles as a bad team
ofanrex: go on
Rocinante2: i'm done
Rocinante2: lmao

Play Brushback Baseball! (we need more people)
Neato Torpedo
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
EditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerWeb Supporter
Posts: 8618
Joined: 4 Mar 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: we don't burn gasoline, we burn our dreams

Re: Who does more harm: the Steinbrenners or the Lorias?

Postby tah161 » Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:09 pm

Depends on how you look at.

If you view from a business stand point that the big spenders are good for baseball. They bring more money and fans to the game because of what they offer. Super stars. You have to spend money to make money.

If your just a true fan of the game because you like baseball as a sport then the big spenders hurt the game. As a pure fan it is annoying watching a team spend millions, almost billions on players every year. You like watching the young players grow into solid stars or superstars.

Just depends on how you view baseball and how competitive your team is. If your team is out spending half a billion dollars on 4 players but they are winning versus a team who is spending 80 million on its entire roster and loosing how are you going to feel?

Same could be said for if your a fan of a big market team but they either dont spend as much as they should of make stupid desicions (cough*DOdgers*cough) then how are you going to feel?
tah161
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 555
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Who does more harm: the Steinbrenners or the Lorias?

Postby noseeum » Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:35 pm

tah161 wrote:Depends on how you look at.

If you view from a business stand point that the big spenders are good for baseball. They bring more money and fans to the game because of what they offer. Super stars. You have to spend money to make money.

If your just a true fan of the game because you like baseball as a sport then the big spenders hurt the game. As a pure fan it is annoying watching a team spend millions, almost billions on players every year. You like watching the young players grow into solid stars or superstars.

Just depends on how you view baseball and how competitive your team is. If your team is out spending half a billion dollars on 4 players but they are winning versus a team who is spending 80 million on its entire roster and loosing how are you going to feel?

Same could be said for if your a fan of a big market team but they either dont spend as much as they should of make stupid desicions (cough*DOdgers*cough) then how are you going to feel?


I don't think you meant it that way, but "true fan of the game"? "Pure fan?"

Lose the condescension. Yankees and Sox fans are true fans of the game. Money has nothing to do with that. If you want purity, watch the Little League World Series. Even the Brewers are a business. A bad one, but a business nonetheless.
noseeum
Major League Manager
Major League Manager


Posts: 1697
Joined: 1 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Previous

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2015 MLB season starts in 22:43 hours
(and 89 days)

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