BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Bluefield Daily Telegraph: Woodson: Baseball needs to shine again

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, July 05, 2009

Bluefield Daily Telegraph: Woodson: Baseball needs to shine again

“(hikes!!)”...about sez it all.

Baseball has taken a beating over the last decade or so, really since the World Series was canceled in 1994.

Since then, baseball — under the so-called leadership of Bud Selig — has tried to regroup — for good or bad — behind such innovations as interleague play, wildcard teams, expanded playoffs, realignment, escalating salaries, an All-Star game tie, the ill-fated Baseball Network, juiced baseballs, expansion, dilution of pitching, over-saturation of televised games, steroids and even a suspended World Series baseball game, and a three-inning finale.

Baseball needs pennant races, a thrilling final three months of the season, and a great postseason.

The sport desperately needs a must-see World Series, a matchup with a buzz. We haven’t had one of those in a while. We need Reds-Red Sox from ‘75 or Braves-Twins in ‘91.

...What has happened to “America’s Pastime”? For one thing, it isn’t anymore, not even close. Football (college and pro), basketball (ditto), NASCAR (hikes!!) and golf (when Tiger plays) have passed it by.

Repoz Posted: July 05, 2009 at 09:40 PM | 19 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: baseball geeks

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. Tripon Posted: July 05, 2009 at 10:08 PM (#3242843)

No way NASCAR is more popular than baseball.

2. Evil Tom Posted: July 06, 2009 at 12:19 AM (#3242924)

The NFL is more popular.
College football is as popular.

Everything else is well below MLB.

3. AndrewJ Posted: July 06, 2009 at 12:19 AM (#3242925)

In the South, well, very likely so.

4. JRVJ (formerly Delta Socrates) Posted: July 06, 2009 at 12:26 AM (#3242931)

Must-see WS: Arizona - NYY '01, right after 9/11. IF that wasn't must watch, I don't know what is.

5. Shock Posted: July 06, 2009 at 12:26 AM (#3242932)

hikes?

6. Jim Wisinski

Posted: July 06, 2009 at 12:35 AM (#3242936)

The 2004 World Series wasn't must-see? Hell, last year was a pretty damn good matchup going into it as long as you don't go by ESPN's definition of compelling being something involving a select few large market teams.

7. Hector Moreda & The Generalissimo Posted: July 06, 2009 at 12:36 AM (#3242938)

The Red Sox with a chance to win their first World Series in 86 years, after completing the greatest comeback in baseball history, that wasn't a matchup with buzz?

I defy this guy to name the seasons, pre-1994, that had a "thrilling" final three months. Go ahead, I'll wait.

8. a bebop a rebop Posted: July 06, 2009 at 12:42 AM (#3242939)

the ill-fated Baseball Network

I realize the fishbarrel nature of this Repoz post, but is this guy kidding?

9. Bhaakon Posted: July 06, 2009 at 12:43 AM (#3242941)

That's the problem with baseball today, too many televised games. I can't believe I didn't see it before, but it makes perfect sense now. Baseball's been going down hill ever since we let that wretched cyclops into our homes. Also, since they let the coloreds in.

10. Vaux, A.B.D. Posted: July 06, 2009 at 01:06 AM (#3242946)

Rebob, "The Baseball Network" was in 1994-95; it's not the same thing as the new MLB cable channel.

11. TerpNats Posted: July 06, 2009 at 02:06 AM (#3242963)

The Red Sox with a chance to win their first World Series in 86 years, after completing the greatest comeback in baseball history, that wasn't a matchup with buzz?

The World Series games themselves that year weren't all that compelling. The 2005 WS games -- in which the White Sox had a chance to end an even longer (if far less sherwdly marketed) stretch of futility -- were far more interesting, even though that Series was also a sweep.

But gee, it would be nice to see a Series go the distance for the first time since 2002, although I sadly doubt it would draw high ratings unless the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Cubs or Dodgers (if Ramirez is playing) were involved.

Keep in mind this came from a paper in Bluefield, W.Va., where most people either root for the Pirates or the Reds. In MLB terms these days, that's flyover country.

12. Cooper Nielson Posted: July 06, 2009 at 02:26 AM (#3242971)

The sport desperately needs a must-see World Series, a matchup with a buzz. We haven’t had one of those in a while. We need Reds-Red Sox from ‘75 or Braves-Twins in ‘91.

The 1991 Series was a great one, of course, but I don't remember the "matchup" having much buzz. Other than the worst-to-first thing, was anyone really stoked about a Braves-Twins World Series in, say, September 1991?

13. Tom Nawrocki Posted: July 06, 2009 at 02:58 AM (#3242974)

But gee, it would be nice to see a Series go the distance for the first time since 2002

It would be nice to see even a six-game series, which we haven't had since 2003.

14. TerpNats Posted: July 06, 2009 at 03:01 AM (#3242979)

The 1991 Series was a great one, of course, but I don't remember the "matchup" having much buzz. Other than the worst-to-first thing, was anyone really stoked about a Braves-Twins World Series in, say, September 1991?

With divisional play, it's hard to establish "buzz," though I remember thinking how wirdly wonderful it would be to have a Series involving not one, but two worst-to-first teams -- although Atlanta was in a tight NL West race with Los Angeles and San Francisco. (The Twins had a comparatively easier time in winning the AL West.) Now, of course, you have an additional tier of playoffs, making it hard to envision a "dream" WS matchup. Had the Red Sox not rallied to beat the Yankees in 2004, we would have had a Yards-Cardinals WS with the Torre angle (something we almost had in 1996 had the Cards not collpased in the NLCS).

15. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Moral Idiot

Posted: July 06, 2009 at 03:11 AM (#3242983)

With divisional play, it's hard to establish "buzz," though I remember thinking how wirdly wonderful it would be to have a Series involving not one, but two worst-to-first teams -- although Atlanta was in a tight NL West race with Los Angeles and San Francisco.

As a Yankee fan, my most anticipated Series in the wildcard era was the 96 Series against Atlanta, but even that paled compared to any of the LCSs against Boston.

But in the pre-wildcard era, I was positively drooling over the prospect of a Tigers-Cubs Series in 1984, which not only would have matched my two favorite ballparks, but it would have embarrassed the hell out of baseball when it tried to move the Cubs home games to St. Louis in order to play them at night. I'm not sure how that would ever have been resolved, other than possibly by switching the beginning the Series to Detroit and playing the Friday-Saturday-Sunday games in Wrigley---but then the Cubs would have been screwed out of the home field advantage, and I'm not sure that they would have gone for that. But in any case, it wasn't only Cubs fans who were disgusted by that Madres comeback in the NLCS.

16. Walt Davis Posted: July 06, 2009 at 04:29 AM (#3243014)

Yes, baseball's in so much trouble it's setting attendance records nearly every year and has seen revenues skyrocket since 1996. I would imagine every sports league in the world is jealous of baseball's internet revenues -- of all the sports to figure it out first, I never would have guessed baseball. Add in baseball's continued success in getting subsidized stadiums and what more could you ask for?

The only place baseball is having any "trouble" is with network TV broadcast ratings yet (1) they keep getting nice deals from the networks plus (2) network TV has been slumping for two decades as a whole anyway.

So, just another sportswriter annoyed that baseball isn't the way he (incorrectly) remembers it and the facts be damned.

17. Bad Doctor Posted: July 06, 2009 at 02:49 PM (#3243189)

Is this a put on?

Their kids? Forget baseball, they’re playing soccer, riding skateboards or too busy with video games, iPods, Facebook or cell phones to care about the greatness of Albert Pujols or Roy Halladay.

18. The District Attorney Posted: July 06, 2009 at 03:09 PM (#3243215)

They're a pubescent herd of gabby wretches prattling on about boys and music and jellybeans... and... stickers.

19. Hector Moreda & The Generalissimo Posted: July 06, 2009 at 03:32 PM (#3243241)

The World Series games themselves that year weren't all that compelling

Well I can't really argue against that. And sure, I'd love to see a punch-counterpunch 6 or 7 game series the way that the NHL seems to manage. But you can't deny that there was a lot of hype and interest going into Game 1.

And what does the statement about golf's popularity even mean? How the hell is he measuring that?

And yes, obviously this is a put on:

too busy with video games, iPods, Facebook or cell phones

because anyone knows that all those things are all on one device now. No "or" needed.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Sunday, July 05, 2009

Bluefield Daily Telegraph: Woodson: Baseball needs to shine again

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics