Likewise, when MLB expanded to have enough teams that it needed to let more than 4 of them into the playoffs, baseball became bad. It was inevitable. It couldn't withstand the trend from other sports which let virtually any team with a .500 record into the playoffs. Even though baseball still has far fewer playoff spots than other sports, it is now bad. It is not possible for more people to like it now than the number of people who liked it when it was good.

Exactly. SBB's position that the expanded playoffs are hurting fan interest follows perfectly from his dislike for the expanded playoffs, just not from reality.

Now, if he wanted to forecast a long-term trend of diluted talent following expansion (# of teams), that might have some basis in what we've seen this October... (cross quoted from another thread, and presented more for shock value than a serious endorsement of the hypothetical trend)

2012 AL Postseason OPS

Detroit: .650
Yankees: .603
Rangers: .570
Oakland: .553
Orioles: .506

[146] No worries Bob, and thanks for confirming that it was indeed well attended.

Sure, they are -- and plenty of people do just that.

Again, I still don't know what a mallpark is. Is it someplace that you have to pay a ticket to get into and then you can hang around?

Reading that except, your definition of a mallpark is basically a place people would want to go to? A place that isn't an eyesore, that makes you not want to kill yourself, and has women at the park?

ghastly I know, letting those womenfolk into what used to be solely a mans bastion where you could quietly contemplate suicide as you drink beer and watch a game in peace and quiet.

There is no reason to believe that those extra people going to CBP aren't going to watch baseball (unless you're arguing women don't watch baseball).

If I had to pick a "Golden Age" of baseball, in terms of pure interest in the sport, quality competition among most/all the markets, and quality/variety of play on the field, I'd say around 1978 to 1993 and if forced to narrow it further, I'd say 1988 to 1993 -- years having nothing to do with being a kid as I was 12 a decade-plus before 1988.

Coincidentally, or maybe not, the A's attendance figures reflect that. The game is no more popular now than when the A's had their big attendance run, and is almost certainly less popular.

There is no reason to believe that those extra people going to CBP aren't going to watch baseball (unless you're arguing women don't watch baseball).

Do people go to the boardwalk on the Jersey Shore on Friday night to watch baseball?

Is it someplace that you have to pay a ticket to get into and then you can hang around?

Yes. Maybe they don't do it in St. Louis, but yes.

Stadiums are no longer a bunch of seats, sparse restrooms, and a couple hot dog and beer stands. They're now a bunch of more comfortable seats, nightclubs, restaurants, cocktail lounges, wide areas to mingle and walk, and stores. With more and higher-quality chicks hanging out. Of course you're going to get more people to come to those places.

Do people go to the boardwalk on the Jersey Shore on Friday night to watch baseball?

You're using a silly metaphor to prove a point?

There is no reason to believe that those extra people going to CBP aren't going to watch baseball (unless you're arguing women don't watch baseball).

I don't think he knows what a mallpark is, it's just a catch word he heard someplace and latched onto and now think every new park is one of those.

Stadiums are no longer a bunch of seats, sparse restrooms, and a couple hot dog and beer stands. They're now a bunch of more comfortable seats, nightclubs, restaurants, cocktail lounges, wide areas to mingle and walk, and stores. With more and higher-quality chicks hanging out. Of course you're going to get more people to come to those places.

Ok, what is wrong with that. You go to a game and you want to be comfortable, why would you want to pay outrageous prices for beer and food and not get good beer and food? or have a selection of choices?

Your definition of a mallpark is basically a well designed stadium that it isn't a chore to go to? People aren't paying ticket prices to get the privilege of paying for overpriced food. They are paying ticket prices to go to a game, comfort just makes it a more pleasurable experience.

Baseball fans might be more likely to go to a "mallpark" than another stadium. That does not mean that the people going there are not baseball fans.

Coincidentally, or maybe not, the A's attendance figures reflect that. The game is no more popular now than when the A's had their big attendance run, and is almost certainly less popular.

Coincidentally the A's were a really good team in those six years.

Ok, what is wrong with that.

Nothing. And a lot is right with that.

But that fact explains, to a large if not definitive degree, why baseball's attendance has gone up. It's not the underlying popularity of the sport itself, or the experience of paying attention to it live -- thus Oakland and Tampa -- it's the fact that a lot of people who don't care about baseball go to baseball games now that didn't BITD. Thus, we can't just say, "Attendance higher, popularity higher."

The Phillies also had a bunch of good-looking (and greasy) white guys come up shortly after CBP opened, which could help explain a general increase in female fandom which would explain why more women are at the park. Doesn't mean they aren't there to watch the game.

That's a big part of it. The old postseason wasn't so much "playoffs" as it was matchups of teams that had already won something challenging and worthwhile and were just trying to win what the Euro/Anglo soccer fan would call more "silverware" by winning each of the next two postseason series.

well i've been on this board constantly suggesting that baseball expand to 32 teams and do 8 4-team divisions and just get rid of the wild card. of course then you'll have whiny babies crying about teams winning crummy divisions and then getting hot.

the heck with it. you can't please everybody.

Thus, we can't just say, "Attendance higher, popularity higher."

But we can and should say "lower attendance (at NYS, ignoring every other ballpark), popularity will eventually fall due to expanded playoffs"? I'm confoosed.

5) Sneaking cash into incompetent umpires pockets to "interpret" an infield fly call like Rodney Dangerfield in "Caddyshack"-- "keep it fair, keep it fair".

fun's fun, but that's a pretty serious accusation.

phredbird knew he was going to take a lot of crap in this thread, but he deserves a primey for #46.

gee, thanks. i've been on this board since well before registration (with the same handle too) and never been nominated for a primey. i guess that doesn't speak well for the quality of my posts. oh well.

It does seem like a lot of people at baseball games aren't paying attention (unless it's really close in the late innings). But wasn't it like that in the 70s as well? When I see people reminiscing about going to regular-season games, a lot of it is about how the ballpark was a cheap place to go and hang out, and/or how people were always getting drunk and getting into fights.

It's a good sign that most of the casual fans are young. There are so many tickets available that a lot less people are priced out of going to baseball games than they are from NBA or NFL.

But that fact explains, to a large if not definitive degree, why baseball's attendance has gone up. It's not the underlying popularity of the sport itself, or the experience of paying attention to it live -- thus Oakland and Tampa -- it's the fact that a lot of people who don't care about baseball go to baseball games now that didn't BITD. Thus, we can't just say, "Attendance higher, popularity higher."

Not really at all. Oakland's popularity is caused by the fact that the owner has bad mouth the team and the stadium, poor marketing is not the same thing as nationwide interest has waned. And Tampa is an expansion team that is a poor market and is still outdrawing many of the teams were, when you point to your sweet spot.

The facts are 1. baseball is drawing more fans. 2. the 12 rank team in attendance is drawing more fans than the 4th rank team fro your sweet spot 3. the lower drawing teams are also drawing better than the majority. No matter how you slice it you cannot deny the facts.

The better ballpark experience drives popularity. The increased competitiveness drives popularity. More teams being in the post season hunt, means more fans in more cities, you don't have a handful of teams with good attendance and a majority with poor attendance, instead you have a majority with good attendance, a couple with poor attendance.

No matter how you look at it, those are the facts.

2012 attendence.


1988 your sweet spot



6 teams with higher attendance than the best team in 1988. Yes there are more teams(by 4) than in that past, 2012 has 8 teams with over 3 mil in attendance, 0 teams with under 1.5 mil in attendance(compared to 5)... it's not a debate.

If I had to pick a "Golden Age" of baseball, in terms of pure interest in the sport, quality competition among most/all the markets, and quality/variety of play on the field, I'd say around 1978 to 1993 and if forced to narrow it further, I'd say 1988 to 1993

now we know approximately when sugar bear shooting blanks was 12.

now we know approximately when sugar bear shooting blanks was 12.

The rest of the part that you quoted tells you when he was 12.

If I had to pick a "Golden Age" of baseball, in terms of pure interest in the sport, quality competition among most/all the markets, and quality/variety of play on the field, I'd say around 1978 to 1993 and if forced to narrow it further, I'd say 1988 to 1993 -- years having nothing to do with being a kid as I was 12 a decade-plus before 1988.

my bad, i had to stop reading. you should too, you're wasting your bandwidth.

Tampa draws way less than the good Astro teams drew to the craptastic Astrodome in the 80s.

Yes, and there are no other differences between the city of Houston and the city of St. Petersburg that could possibly explain this disparity. Nope. None at all.

Anyway, if the change in parks is solely responsible for the increase in attendance, let's look at the teams who've played in the same park since the beginning of the LCS era. Here they are:

Red Sox - Average attendance from 1969-93: 24,868. Average from 1994-2012: 33,490. Difference: +8,622.

Angels - Average from 1969-93: 23,430. Average from 1994-2012: 33,464. Difference: +10,034.

Well, those teams have both played better in the Wild Card era than they did in the "at least the team won SOMETHING" era. But there are a few that haven't:

Dodgers - Average from 1969-93: 34,681. Average from 1994-2012: 41,175. Difference: +6,494. (Declined by 11 points of winning percentage, and haven't won a pennant in the Wild Card era after winning five pennants and two titles in the LCS era.)

Cubs - Average from 1969-93: 20,959. Average from 1994-2012: 35,065. Difference: +14,106. (Declined by 7 points of winning percentage; obviously haven't won a pennant in either period. This year's 101-loss team outdrew the 1984 division champs by over 9,000 fans per game. EDIT: This year's 101-loss team actually outdrew EVERY SINGLE CUB TEAM from the LCS-only era.)

A's (as discussed above) - Average from 1969-93: 17,233. Average from 1994-2012: 20,915. Difference: +3,682.

Those mallparks sure are powerful - they can even draw fans to other stadiums.

a mans bastion where you could quietly contemplate suicide as you drink beer and watch a game in peace and quiet

There were a lot of women around, but the rest of this phrase corresponds to my last three nights at the Ballpark :-D

my bad, i had to stop reading. you should too, you're wasting your bandwidth.

I had quit reading and was going to make a similar 12 year old comment, and went back and caught it.

I'm not sure who is more pigheaded, SBB or Sam. Sbb is at least not an idiot, even if his brain isn't able to properly connect logic circuits.

Back when we were kids, baseball (and everything else) was cool.

Then we got older, and baseball (and everything else) changed.

Now, baseball (and everything else) kinda sucks.

And to make things worse, scads of ignorant young people are enjoying baseball (and everything else), even though we know it's an inferior product.

If only baseball (and everything else) could be the way it was.

And we could be young again.

If only baseball (and everything else) could be the way it was.

And we could be young again.

This sort of thing is the reason that the Specs Toporcer entry is my favorite chapter in The Glory of Their Times. Toporcer always had bad vision (hence the nickname), but he went more or less completely blind after his playing career ended. Because of that, he obviously wasn't able to watch the players who came after him, but he still listened to him on the radio. And because he was therefore seeing them through the excited eyes of a radio announcer rather than the jaded ones of a former player, he rediscovered the sense of awe that so many of his fellow retirees seem to lose.

Back when we were kids, baseball (and everything else) was cool.

Then we got older, and baseball (and everything else) changed.

Now, baseball (and everything else) kinda sucks.

And to make things worse, scads of ignorant young people are enjoying baseball (and everything else), even though we know it's an inferior product.

If only baseball (and everything else) could be the way it was.

And we could be young again.

I was thinking of something along similar lines. Baseball when I was younger was more enjoyable, but so was Star Wars and so was Battle of the Planets and math and Soccer(Indoor) and it's not like I like them less nowadays(well maybe soccer) but it's that I have so many other interest that I can't dedicate my interest so single purposely. It's the sad part of growing up, but it doesn't really mean you have lost interest it's just that you have to compartmentalize your interests.

The inability of stat dorks to distinguish predictive analysis from "things that have actually happened in the world" is...tedious.

That's rich, coming from the guy who claims the Cardinals didn't win real championships because they didn't have the best regular season record...

Your definition of a mallpark is basically a well designed stadium that it isn't a chore to go to? People aren't paying ticket prices to get the privilege of paying for overpriced food. They are paying ticket prices to go to a game, comfort just makes it a more pleasurable experience.

Yep, from what I understand, mallparks are any new baseball stadium that draws a lot of people (or any stadium that draws a lot of people). To be a true ballpark, you have to have worse attendance, because popularity is down for baseball because of expanded playoffs. Anything contradicting this is just random noise to be ignored.

I do love that the mallpark article pointed out that, GASP... Females are actually showing up at games. Oh, the humanity!

And the anti-Cards rhetoric is pretty hilarious as well.

I'm not sure who is more pigheaded, SBB or Sam. Sbb is at least not an idiot, even if his brain isn't able to properly connect logic circuits.

oddly enough, i'd put it the other way around. sam facebooks much better than he btfs.

sorry to use those words as verbs, you know what i mean.

Why don't you explain your disagreement?

Because I don't really consider you worth the effort.

That's rich, coming from the guy who claims the Cardinals didn't win real championships because they didn't have the best regular season record...

I never claimed the Cards didn't win the tournament games. I merely scare-quoted "championship' to show my derision for the "skill" required to do as much. Also, lick my sack.

Also, lick my sack.

Boy, if that doesn't clinch an argument, nothing does!

Boy, if that doesn't clinch an argument, nothing does!

I have mad debating skills. I was in debate club and everything.

Why don't you explain your disagreement?
Because I don't really consider you worth the effort.

Wow. Ignorant, stupid, and lazy. Impressive.

Impressive

It only gets better the closer you get, baby.

The Cards-hating is fine. Part of fandom to cherish these irrational things. And the TLR hating is fine too, since it's pretty rational.

But the widely accepted premise on this thread that the Cardinals have a knack for above average luck, or have a clever plan for underachieving in the regular season, is alarming! Among a select group of people who are supposed to understand numbers! This is exactly what led to the financial crisis. Well, that and a bunch of greed.

Sure, the Cards were lucky to have the Braves collapse last year (and they were lucky to finally have Allen Craig and David Freese healthy). So let's go back to ancient history: 2010. The Cardinals again were again cleverly a little above .500 and watched the postseason from home. Digging even further back into the archives: 2009, the lucky Cardinals rode their division championship into the playoffs and were shut down 3-0 by the Dodgers. 2008: they were again cleverly a little above .500 and finished 4th in the weak-ass central division. In 2007 it looks like they hadn't figured out the secret to success was to be a little ABOVE .500. In 2006, they were genuinely lucky. And in 2005 they owned the best record in baseball, the only 100-win team, and they were taken out by the Houston Astros.

But the widely accepted premise on this thread that the Cardinals have a knack for above average luck, or have a clever plan for underachieving in the regular season, is alarming! Among a select group of people who are supposed to understand numbers! This is exactly what led to the financial crisis. Well, that and a bunch of greed.

Or, you could look at more than an 8-year sample. If you look at the entire history of the World Series, the Cardinals have won just over three more of them than you'd expect based on their playoff appearances. That's the second-most among the 30 franchises, trailing only (of course) the Yankees.

it's the fact that a lot of people who don't care about baseball go to baseball games now that didn't BITD. Thus, we can't just say, "Attendance higher, popularity higher."

Isn't that a textbook example of an increase in popularity? Baseball has attracted a lot of new fans using creative marketing.

Or are you arguing that in the old days, baseball was so popular nobody went to the ballparks anymore, they were too crowded?

I hereby propose that the day leading up to Game 3 we spend again in a long thread about how the Cards catch all the breaks and get all the calls.



Oh, and the rule ought to be that you can't make contact with the infielder past the bag. I'd expect Holliday shouldn't dig in his first AB against the Giants next spring.

What changed is that I decided that "sports hate" is stupid.

This is the craziest thing I have read in this thread (including SBB relentlessly stating you can not compare old and new ballparks for attendence, while using TV ratings decline as a sure sign of decreased interest - hey SBB the media landscape has changed more than the ballparks have).

Sports hate is fun. Booing AJ Pierogi and Captain Dreamboat is fun. I was not actually happy when the Captain hurt his ankle, but I was sports hate happy. As a human I wish nothing but the best for Mr. Jeter, as a Yankee Icon he is the object of scorn. it is not personal and is not real, but it helps give a interest in games and someone to cheer for or against.

And both SBB and Sam have their moments. Sam is more clearly an internet construct and on those terms is entertaining, but SBB has his moments.

I have a very mild sports hate for the Cards. I am a mild Cubs fan (from my time in Chicago) and dislike TLR, but thatis about as far as it goes. My baseball sports hate is reserved for the Yankee's and Dodgers, though the Red Sox are really trying to evoke it and gthe Braves are fairly aweful as well.

Isn't that a textbook example of an increase in popularity? Baseball has attracted a lot of new fans using creative marketing.

Not in my eyes. More people going to the property where baseball is played to do things other than watch baseball does not equal an increase in popularity.

And I'm still confused about Oakland and Tampa -- the only non-mallpark, non-icon stadiums in baseball. How is baseball in Oakland "more popular than ever" when attendance is down ca. 40% from its peak? Particularly when, as is likely, fewer people in the A's market watch the postseason games on TV than in the late 80s/early 90s?

How is baseball in Tampa "popular" at all?

Not in my eyes. More people going to the property where baseball is played to do things other than watch baseball does not equal an increase in popularity.

Ah, the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. They go to ballparks, pay admission, watch the game, cheer the players, but they aren't true fans!

Oakland and Tampa -- the only non-mallpark, non-icon stadiums in baseball.

Angels Stadium?

I haven't been to Camden Yards in a long time - is it a mallpark? It's certainly comfortable, but I don't recall any frills.

Same with the Nats park.

Well, I guess I have to revise my theory about Chris Carpenter being invincible in the playoffs.

Angels Stadium?

Never been there. It's been renovated a bunch, likely converted from ballpark to mallpark -- that's, you know, kind of the point of the renovations. The Angels drew 2.8M plus to it when it was a concrete circle, multi-purpose "monstrosity." Looks like they averaged 2.4-2.5 M in the 80s.

I haven't been to Camden Yards in a long time - is it a mallpark? It's certainly comfortable, but I don't recall any frills.

Same with the Nats park.

If it draws more people and is anything more than a baseball field, seats, and maybe (can't be sure) one concession stand, mallpark

If it draws more people and is anything more than a baseball field, seats, and maybe (can't be sure) one concession stand, mallpark

Drawing more people isn't a prerequisite. For example, the Orioles drew ca. 350,000 more fans to multipurpose, circular Memorial Stadium in 1990 and 1991 than to mallpark Camden Yards in 2012 -- and for worse teams.