MLB and Union talk major rule changes

[Ohfan67]

17 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

.  Attendance is down 10,000,000 since the peak in 2007.  .

I had no idea. Ouch. 

[SurhoffRules]

22 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I keep hearing this, but then I don't hear many recommendations for recruiting the next generation of fans to baseball.  The average age of a MLB television viewer is 57,  or at least that's what the first result said when I Googled it.  The average NBA viewer is 15 years younger.  I'd bet American soccer and hockey fans are, on average, a lot younger than 57.  

Baseball is whistling past the graveyard.  Revenues are at record levels.  But the baby boomers aren't going to be here forever.  Gen Xers are in their 40s and 50s.  

If you're not willing to entertain even incremental changes to appeal to younger people, you're eventually going to have to deal with MLB being a very niche product with lower revenues and a smaller fanbase.  Attendance is down 10,000,000 since the peak in 2007.  Not that much, I guess.  I'm sure it's just a blip, it'll come back.  No need to worry, right?  Eventually the kids will come around to pastoral beauty of three hour games with three homers, 18 strikeouts, 12 pitching changes and 15 hits.

I feel like viewing rule changes as "we have to do this because no one is watching our product anymore" can distract from the more inclusive question of "what are things this sport could do with/without to make it a better experience." I've no plans to stop watching baseball games regardless of the lack of rule tweaks, but I know there are things I could do without or wouldn't mind if they changed. If the sport picks up some more viewers in the process, hooray, but it doesn't need to be the primary goal of the endevour.

[Can_of_corn]

30 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I keep hearing this, but then I don't hear many recommendations for recruiting the next generation of fans to baseball.  The average age of a MLB television viewer is 57,  or at least that's what the first result said when I Googled it.  The average NBA viewer is 15 years younger.  I'd bet American soccer and hockey fans are, on average, a lot younger than 57.  

Baseball is whistling past the graveyard.  Revenues are at record levels.  But the baby boomers aren't going to be here forever.  Gen Xers are in their 40s and 50s.  

If you're not willing to entertain even incremental changes to appeal to younger people, you're eventually going to have to deal with MLB being a very niche product with lower revenues and a smaller fanbase.  Attendance is down 10,000,000 since the peak in 2007.  Not that much, I guess.  I'm sure it's just a blip, it'll come back.  No need to worry, right?  Eventually the kids will come around to pastoral beauty of three hour games with three homers, 18 strikeouts, 12 pitching changes and 15 hits.

I think a fair bit of it is a marketing problem.  I think baseball as a whole has been very poor in this regard and have allowed the individual teams to conduct themselves without an overriding plan.

[SurhoffRules]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think a fair bit of it is a marketing problem.  I think baseball as a whole has been very poor in this regard and have allowed the individual teams to conduct themselves without an overriding plan.

That's an interesting take. The nfl does really market the league but since the vast majority of games take place on Sundays it's probably a bit easier to sell the idea of being a football fan compared to the spread out marathon that is baseball. I wonder what sort of league wide initiative could be effective.

[DrungoHazewood]

15 hours ago, Ohfan67 said:

Attending a non-competitive college football game is now a truly miserable experience because of the time issue.  The TV time outs seem to last forever and there seem to be an infinite number of them when you are in the stadium for a slow moving game. Very frustrating. 

Tom Tango often argues against long extra inning games because everyone leaves.  By the 15th inning there are 3,000 people in the stands.  The fans vote with their feet.

Virginia Tech will have games every year where they play Akron or somebody.  It's a full house, or almost.  It's 33-0 at the half, and most of the the student section leaves before the 4th quarter.  By final whistle there are more Marching Virginians than fans in the east stands.  And yes, the ref in the red uniform is still standing out on the field for the full four minutes of commercials every three minutes halfway into the 4th quarter.  I guess nobody cares if the game is over in 20 minutes in just so long as the fans show up at the start.  

[DrungoHazewood]

15 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think a fair bit of it is a marketing problem.  I think baseball as a whole has been very poor in this regard and have allowed the individual teams to conduct themselves without an overriding plan.

I think that's engangled with baseball's culture.  To many of the core baby boomer fanbase having players with strong, marketable personalities is counter to how they "should" be acting.  Much of the fanbase (and we certainly see it here) expects the stars to be Cal Ripken, stoic and inoffensive to a fault.  Adam Jones is loved, but even he took flak from some quarters for the occasional mildly controversial comment.  Baseball players aren't supposed to be some punk football/basketball player who won't keep his head down, be quiet, and play baseball.  It's hard to market Ward Cleaver to 20-year-olds in 2019.

[Frobby]

43 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Tom Tango often argues against long extra inning games because everyone leaves.  By the 15th inning there are 3,000 people in the stands.  The fans vote with their feet.

Sure, but those games are rare.   

Extra innings: 9%

11+: 5%

12+: 3%

13+: 1.6%

14+: < 1%

 

[DrungoHazewood]

4 hours ago, Frobby said:

Sure, but those games are rare.   

Extra innings: 9%

11+: 5%

12+: 3%

13+: 1.6%

14+: < 1%

 

Kind of a tangent, but the famous Oeschger-Cadore 26 inning tie was finished in 3:50.  Called because of darkness.  At 3 hours per nine innings today that would have taken almost nine hours to play.

[osfan83]

Start weeknight games at 5p, then you don't have to change a thing. Even if you miss the first hour commuting from work, you will still see the last 2 1/2 hours. I just cant stay up to 10:30 or 11p every week night to see the end of these games. Now, during O's season, I go to bed about the 7th inning, then watch the last two innings+ the next morning on the MLB App in my office.   

[SteveA]

3 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Kind of a tangent, but the famous Oeschger-Cadore 26 inning tie was finished in 3:50.  Called because of darkness.  At 3 hours per nine innings today that would have taken almost nine hours to play.

I think if you do get into one of those long games, the innings will go faster because:

   -- the likeliest way to keep the game going another inning is a scoreless inning, which logically won't take as long as a multi-run inning

   -- at some point you have to stick one pitcher out there and go with him for a while, there will be fewer than average pitching changes, you will have run out of pinch hitters, so there will be fewer strategic moves made.   It's just batter up, next batter up, etc.

So I think the 3hr/9 inning = 20 minutes per inning equation probably doesn't hold true for long extra inning games.   The "average" 19th inning is probably significantly less than 20 minutes long.

[DrungoHazewood]

On 3/15/2019 at 4:45 PM, SteveA said:

I think if you do get into one of those long games, the innings will go faster because:

   -- the likeliest way to keep the game going another inning is a scoreless inning, which logically won't take as long as a multi-run inning

   -- at some point you have to stick one pitcher out there and go with him for a while, there will be fewer than average pitching changes, you will have run out of pinch hitters, so there will be fewer strategic moves made.   It's just batter up, next batter up, etc.

So I think the 3hr/9 inning = 20 minutes per inning equation probably doesn't hold true for long extra inning games.   The "average" 19th inning is probably significantly less than 20 minutes long.

The Chris Davis game lasted 6:07, or about 21.6 minutes per inning.

[Ohfan67]

On 3/14/2019 at 3:01 PM, Can_of_corn said:

I think a fair bit of it is a marketing problem.  I think baseball as a whole has been very poor in this regard and have allowed the individual teams to conduct themselves without an overriding plan.

And baseball has gotten very expensive for a family outing. I live in Texas so I don't get to Camden Yards very often (like once every eight to ten years), but an Astros game that includes decent seats, parking, food, etc., can easily cost $500 - $600 for a family of four. It's a once every few years treat for my family, especially since my kids are not huge baseball fans. 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Ohfan67 said:

And baseball has gotten very expensive for a family outing. I live in Texas so I don't get to Camden Yards very often (like once every eight to ten years), but an Astros game that includes decent seats, parking, food, etc., can easily cost $500 - $600 for a family of four. It's a once every few years treat for my family, especially since my kids are not huge baseball fans. 

Baseball is much cheaper than the other major sports.  You can literally go to a game at Camden Yards for $20-30.  Bring your own food, get a bleacher seat for $15, maybe buy a soda, park off-site for $10.  I don't quite how you're getting to $500 for a family of four.  My family of four goes to OPACY a few times a year and I don't think I've ever spent $300 even while while sitting in $50+ box seats.  You can certainly take a family of four to a game for under $200.  That's far less than an NFL/NHL/NBA/MLS game.

[theocean]

6 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Baseball is much cheaper than the other major sports.  You can literally go to a game at Camden Yards for $20-30.  Bring your own food, get a bleacher seat for $15, maybe buy a soda, park off-site for $10.  I don't quite how you're getting to $500 for a family of four.  My family of four goes to OPACY a few times a year and I don't think I've ever spent $300 even while while sitting in $50+ box seats.  You can certainly take a family of four to a game for under $200.  That's far less than an NFL/NHL/NBA/MLS game.

$200 is a lot of money to a lot of families, especially as income inequality continues to get worse and worse. Cable isn't cheap either. There's an economic barrier to even watch baseball.

Camden Yards is pretty unique in how affordable it is, too. And even it is out of the price range for a lot of families. I mean, movie theaters are having the same problem - it's too expensive and people are watching Netflix instead. 

 

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, theocean said:

$200 is a lot of money to a lot of families, especially as income inequality continues to get worse and worse. Cable isn't cheap either. There's an economic barrier to even watch baseball.

Camden Yards is pretty unique in how affordable it is, too. And even it is out of the price range for a lot of families. I mean, movie theaters are having the same problem - it's too expensive and people are watching Netflix instead. 

 

Shows and concerts are even worse.

Heck we have the Renaissance festival in town and it would cost a family of four 60 bucks to get in the door.