Funny that "a lecturer in corporate communications at Penn State Abington" is criticizing something for being nerdy. You'd think someone immersed in academia would be averse to writing such close-minded drivel.

You'd think someone lecturing in corporate communications would be able to make a point. It's just a bunch of non-sequiturs one after the other. He's just a whiny, not particularly intelligent BS artist.

Wow, in one fell swoop he attacks:

- The length of the game
- The high cost of going to the ballpark
- The laziness of the players
- The greediness of the players (longing for the halcyon days when Joltin' Joe played only for his love of the "crack of the bat")
- Nerdy statheads


Can we get this guy a BBWAA membership?

The DiMaggio thing was brilliant, considering DiMaggio was notorious for holding out.

I'm always fascinated by people who feel the need to write stuff like this. Fine, it's not your cup of tea, but is it really worth an article? I also enjoyed this "I'm amazed when people wail about the salaries of CEOs but think nothing of the fact that Alex Rodriguez will make $28 million this year." - does he really think nobody complains about the salaries of MLB players?

Baseball is an insufferably boring pastime.

The man does know from insufferable.

Wouldn't boreball work better than basebore?

You'd think someone lecturing in corporate communications would be able to make a point.

Someone lecturing in corporate communications is obviously an expert in boring, however.

And you know what they say: Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal may seem enticing but what they conceal is vital.

so, wait a minute, is he saying stat nerds are missing out on seeing Prince Fielder's bodacious rack?

Did he come up with the title? Or are title-writers really allowed to come up with wacky #### like this?

Wouldn't boreball work better than basebore?

Not really. People would get confused about the differences between boreball and boresketball - you don't want to dilute the brand.

This guy's house is going to get the same treatment Mitch William's house got whether the Phils win or lose.

Here's my response to Cirucci, if anyone's interested.

A better title would have been "Pay attention to me! I'm an insufferable jacka**!"

How exactly are the Rays a Cinderella team? They won the AL East and won 97 games.

Crashburn, you didn't mention something else in this part:

In baseball, you have a stoppage after every half-inning that lasts between 1 and 2 minutes (so, between 17 and 34 minutes), a 30-second mound conference that occurs maybe twice a game, and pitching changes, which occur on average three times a game (again, I pulled that average out of thin air). The delays in baseball are no different — and arguably less — than football.

The half-inning stoppages and pitching changes in MLB are natural. They're basically the same length at every level of baseball, and during that time there is at least something going on (pitchers warming up, players throwing it around the infield).

Contrast that with the TV timeouts that go on in pro and college football, where players and coaches stand around doing nothing but waiting for the TV light to come on and indicate that it's safe to play again. You don't see that at high school games (well, until they started putting the damn things on ESPN. I suppose those fans have to endure that crap too).

maybe just don't watch the games?

Good point, SoSH. I'll add that in.

Wow, in one fell swoop he attacks:

- The length of the game
- The high cost of going to the ballpark
- The laziness of the players
- The greediness of the players (longing for the halcyon days when Joltin' Joe played only for his love of the "crack of the bat")
- Nerdy statheads

Well, the first two are legit gripes.

Well, the first two are legit gripes.

But the point of his article is to persuade readers that baseball sucks. The length of baseball games is comparable to other sports (especially football), and the high cost of attending a baseball game is comparable to other sports (especially football). In other words, he fails miserably at backing up his opinion.

The gripes would be legitimate if baseball games were considerably longer and more expensive than other sporting events. But they're not.

"And you know what they say: Statistics are like bikinis."

True, in that neither one makes me look very good.

college football is about 45 minutes longer than NFL football.

Its terrible.

the high cost of attending a baseball game is comparable to other sports (especially football).

Is this accurate in your area? In Toronto, baseball is easily the cheapest ticket in town - hockey, basketball, and football all cost at least double for a comparable seat.

Back when I went to Penn State Abington, known as the Ogontz Campus of Penn State in my day, our instructors COULD put together well-reasoned articles.

Get off of my internets!

Contrast that with the TV timeouts that go on in pro and college football, where players and coaches stand around doing nothing but waiting for the TV light to come on and indicate that it's safe to play again. You don't see that at high school games (well, until they started putting the damn things on ESPN. I suppose those fans have to endure that crap too).

I went to a Div III game last spring (basketball) and it was so, so, so much better than the Wake games I have season tickets to. The pace was fast and the game went quick. I couldn't figure it out. I kept muttering about it and my host finally leaned over and said, "No TV timeouts." It was true. I felt it was sport the way sport was meant to be.

Is this accurate in your area?

I was actually being generous. And lazy.

I couldn't find the price of a regular season ticket for a Phillies game (since they're all finished), so I just generalized. Looking at my ticket stubs (and there is one not pictured, which was a $16 ticket for the 300 section in right field) however, and we can glean that an average ticket is between $16-35.

The cheapest available ticket for Sunday's Falcons-Eagles game that I can find is $166.75.

The cheapest available ticket for tonight's Raptors-76ers game that I can find is $15 for mezzanine ends, $30 for mezzanine corners, and $45 for mezzanine centers.

The cheapest available ticket for the Islanders-Flyers game on the 30th that I can find is in the family section ($10 for kids, $20 full price). It's $26 for mezzanine ends rows 12-15.

So, yeah, baseball is generally much cheaper, especially when you're aiming for better seats.

Cirucci, just call him Sir Goofy

Ah, I got nothing.

How exactly are the Rays a Cinderella team? They won the AL East and won 97 games.

He didn't notice. He likes his stories big market and predictable. He's one of those guys who must be enjoying the wall-to-wall ESPN coverage of the Cowboys latest dysfunction.

But the point of his article is to persuade readers that baseball sucks. The length of baseball games is comparable to other sports (especially football), and the high cost of attending a baseball game is comparable to other sports (especially football). In other words, he fails miserably at backing up his opinion.

The gripes would be legitimate if baseball games were considerably longer and more expensive than other sporting events. But they're not.

This is an illogical argument. The argument of whether baseball is boring and/or too expensive to attend has nothing to do with other professional sports. His conclusion does not entail anything like the comparative analysis to other sports you offer.

The commenters here and on the link itself brought up football out of thin air - he doesn't mention it once. There is no burden upon Cirucci to compare across sports for his points to be valid. For example, if I want to complain that opera is boring, it is not incumbent upon me to prove that it is more boring than ballet.

I agree that he fails miserably on several points (DiMaggio's love of the game #1), but length of game and expense is legit, regardless of what happens in other sports.

Dang, I thought this would be a racist caricature Chinese baseball players.

Touchdown. Commercial. Extra point. Commercial. Kickoff. Commercial.

Even going to every home game would cost more in football, for $15 baseball and $166 football (less that $100 more for the season, though, so it's actually comparable).

I think you guys are forgetting to add up the costs for the souvenir hats, pennants, and foam fingers, not to mention the hot dogs, cracker jack, slushies, and cotton candy for the kids. That ends up adding like another $200 to the cost of going to a game, which is just insane.

I think you guys are forgetting to add up the costs for the souvenir hats, pennants, and foam fingers, not to mention the hot dogs, cracker jack, slushies, and cotton candy for the kids. That ends up adding like another $200 to the cost of going to a game, which is just insane.

You're being sarcastic, right?

You're being sarcastic, right?
Somebody's detector needs a 50,000 post checkup. :)

You're being sarcastic, right?

That was a reaction to the annual "Cost of Going To A Game Index" article that gets trotted out every year, and the first inclination is to do a doubletake at the listed ballpark averages, which are seemingly always hundreds of dollars, because they include parking, food, souvenirs, etc., in addition to the tickets.

I've driven to maybe 5 ballgames in my entire life, and I've seen dozens of major league games in each of at least 4 different parks (if you count Comiskey I and II as one park, anyway).

Touchdown. Commercial. Extra point. Commercial. Kickoff. Commercial.

There isn't a commercial before the extra point. But right after a touchdown is a good time to head to the can. It's going to be 5 minutes, and all you'll miss is an extra point (assuming they don't go for 2, which is cool), and a kickoff, which something like 95 percent of the time results in a runback to roughly the 25-35 yard line.

My favorite delay in football is when the referees huddle up for a while and then announce offsetting penalties that end up having no impact whatsoever on the game. Takes at least a full minute to get that sorted out.

The argument of whether baseball is boring and/or too expensive to attend has nothing to do with other professional sports. His conclusion does not entail anything like the comparative analysis to other sports you offer.

Sure it does. For the criticism of baseball to have any merit, it has to be compared to something. How do we know that baseball games are too long? How do we know that they're too expensive? With nothing to compare it against, you have no standard.

college football is about 45 minutes longer than NFL football

I believe that this is inaccurate, NFL games are dreadfully long. Do you have a citation for it or did you perhaps get your leagues mixed up?

For the criticism of baseball to have any merit, it has to be compared to something. How do we know that baseball games are too long?

I don't think so. It could be too long for you to enjoy, regardless of how it compares to something else. One second of the dude from AC/DC caterwauling is too much for me*. Even if I had never heard someone sing before, it would be too much for me.

*Judging from record sales, a lot of people's mileage varies from mine. :)

I believe that this is inaccurate, NFL games are dreadfully long. Do you have a citation for it or did you perhaps get your leagues mixed up?

I don't think college games are 45 minutes longer on average, but they are definitely longer than NFL games (so he doesn't have leagues mixed up) and some are very long. But this is because the clock is stopped more often in college, so you get to see many more plays than for an NFL game. It isn't as if college has lots more commercials. It has fewer.

Just as I do not care that a given baseball game takes 3:15 instead of 2:40, there are many 4:00+ college football games that I wish could go on for a few more hours.

i disagree that ball games are too long and too expensive.

i've heard this, and had these arguments. these are some of my responses when i'm not feeling so impatient that i just ask the person if they are kind of mentally challenged or have ADD or something.

games are too long by whose standards? watch the game. watch what's going on. nowadays scoreboards are a wealth of information. pitch counts, speed, etc., aside from the normal stuff like balls/strikes/outs ... it'll be in the late innings before you know it. if it's a blowout, fine, leave early. no shame there. it happens. but every game is not a blowout.

don't eat the food or buy souvenirs. are they the reason you are there? really? if it's a matter of kids, you have my sympathies. but i'm reaching a point where i firmly believe that kids shouldn't come to games if they don't know enough about it to follow what is going on. you know, how many outs, what inning, etc. anybody too young to do that simply shouldn't be there. and maybe its just me, but it sure looks to me that those kids too young to follow the game kind of don't want to be there anyway.

okay, it is just me. i like to watch infield practice between innings. when i'm not doing that i like to people watch. if the game is not close, i still stick around. i'll walk around the stadium and take in the sights. watch from another vantage point.

extra innings? nectar. free baseball.

so really i can't relate to a comment like 'games are too long'. i just don't get it.

One second of the dude from AC/DC caterwauling is too much for me*.

I thought I was the only one. I can't listen to him and don't understand how anyone can. How did that band become so popular when the singer's voice sounds like nails on a chalkboard?

There isn't a commercial before the extra point.

Depends on how long it takes to review the replay.

Depends on how long it takes to review the replay.

Or to get the guy with the bruised pinky finger off the field.

I thought I was the only one. I can't listen to him and don't understand how anyone can. How did that band become so popular when the singer's voice sounds like nails on a chalkboard?

I don't listen to music so I can hear the singer hit every note perfectly. If the voice goes with the music -- like James Hetfield with Metallica, David Draiman with Disturbed, Chris Cornell with Soundgarden -- it sounds great to me. For instance, listen to Judas Priest's "Painkiller". The voice is great by no means on its own, but it goes with the music, which makes it great.

I don't think so. It could be too long for you to enjoy, regardless of how it compares to something else.

This is true, but this is someone who's publishing an editorial meant for the Philadelphia Daily News audience. While it is completely pointless anyway (writing an editorial where you proclaim one thing to be better than another based on completely subjective standards such as boringness), there needs to be a standard with which to compare baseball's boringness (and, for some reason, expensiveness).

His objective is to slander baseball, to turn readers off of the sport. Why target baseball specifically for game stoppages and expenses, and ignore other sports? That's my problem with his article. If he had said, "Sports in general are too long and too expensive," then there's no argument (still subjective, but it's less of a finger-jam in the chest of baseball and its fans).

The Baseball Almanac says the longest professional baseball game ever played was a 25-inning game between the Chicago White Sox and the Milwaukee Brewers in 1984.

That was the longest baseball game ever played in MLB. Maybe. The Baseball Almanac actually also lists a 26-inning 1-1 tie between Brooklyn and Boston in 1920.

The longest professional baseball game ever played was between the Pawtucket Red Sox and the Rochester Red Wings in 1981, a 33-inning affair that had to be played over two days. The PawSox won 3-2. Marty Barrett scored the winning run. I don't remember who drove him in. Wade Boggs and Rich Gedman also played in that game, and I think Cal Ripken was involved for Rochester.

Lest this seemingly encyclopedic knowledge appear to confirm the nerdiness of baseball, I only know all that stuff because a friend of mine wrote a children's book about this game and I've been reading it to my daughter at bedtime about once a week for the last month or two. Puts her right to sleep every time. Hey, maybe this guy has a point...

Sure it does. For the criticism of baseball to have any merit, it has to be compared to something.

His comparison was to baseball in the past, and there is no question that baseball today is longer and more expensive (even relative to inflation) than it was in the past. (And as I said, the other comparisons to the past like 'greed' were not valid.

How did that band become so popular when the singer's voice sounds like nails on a chalkboard?

Robert Christgau: "Brian Johnson sings like there's a cattle prod at his scrotum, just the thing for fans who can't decide whether their newfound testosterone is agony or ecstasy."