How much of that "drop" is made up for with streaming ?

It seems they’d be able to track how many people stream. Anyway, I was streaming.

I hate that I've become an old dad cliche on this, but I was watching basketball and switched over to baseball in, I think, the 4th inning, and it was like 9:50 eastern time. May have been the 5th, I'm forgetting. Either way, I quickly determined I wasn't actually interested in watching past 11 for 2 teams I don't care much about, and switched back.

I know it's a big country and you can't please everyone, but the late start/long game thing is tough to overcome.

You don't sound like an old dad, you sound like someone who mostly watches for a particular team rather than the sport. Last night's game was 3:11. Too long, but about as short as you're going to see in a World Series. It ended at 11:20. Game 1 complaints I get.

It's just that you'd rather watch early regular season basketball than the World Series. No shame in that and no reason not to admit it.

I'll always stay up and watch the World Series if the game is close, but those constant midnightish finishes are more than a bit annoying.

47% of the country lives in the Eastern time zone, including Metro Atlanta, and another 29% lives in the Central (including Houston), and yet the endings of "prime time" postseason games nearly always run past the bed times of school children or people in the Eastern time zone who have to get to school or work early the next day. Woody Allen once said the only advantage of L.A. over New York is Right on Red, but I'd add the fact that you can watch any postseason ball game and still get to bed well before midnight.

You don't sound like an old dad, you sound like someone who mostly watches for a particular team rather than the sport. Last night's game was 3:11. Too long, but about as short as you're going to see in a World Series. It ended at 11:20. Game 1 complaints I get.

It's just that you'd rather watch early regular season basketball than the World Series. No shame in that and no reason not to admit it.

I don't think you're wrong in these conclusions but they didn't just happen, is I guess my point. I've spent most of my life not living in the TV market of my favorite team, so I've regularly watched the Mariners, the Braves, the Twins, the Nationals, etc., and become adopted sympathizers of some of those teams. So I'm certainly not averse to watching games that my team isn't playing in, particularly playoff games.

FWIW, the NCAA football chanmpionship and Stanley Cup Finals began at 8 ET, and the NBA Finals began at 9 ET, and the NCAA basketball championship began at 9:20 ET on a Monday.

Back when men were men, going on short sleep was nothing. Fans today just don’t have what it takes anymore.

The glee that some of you take in watching the sport you supposedly care about become less and less relevant continues to be odd to me.

FWIW, the NCAA football chanmpionship and Stanley Cup Finals began at 8 ET, and the NBA Finals began at 9 ET, and the NCAA basketball championship began at 9:20 ET on a Monday.

How many of those games regularly run well over 3 hours, the way that postseason baseball games do?**

Oh, and the Super Bowl starts at 6:00.

** Okay, the NCAA game might run until 4:00 AM, given their cartoonish OT rules. But then that game's nearly always over by halftime, given the inevitable mismatch.

#5, I remember my first trip to LA. Went to see an Angels game, finished around 10 pacific time. Heading back to my hotel I thought I could now watch some of the late games. Took me a second to remember that I just watched the last game of the day. Next day there was morning baseball though. Definitely a weird experience after being used to the east coast schedule my whole life.

It seems they’d be able to track how many people stream.

Yes, but the number quoted (for this year, and the others) is based on television viewers.

Just for context, prior to 2020, World Series Game 1 was pulling in a floor of 12 million viewers dating back to 2012. If Boston or NY or LA were in they'd get higher ratings, and obviously the Cubs/Indians year was crazy, and yes that describes most years after 2012. But they had 12.6M viewers in 2012, 10.8M in 2021. They lost 1.8 million viewers, and that could be explained simply by "HOU/ATL is different from SF/DET".

For reference, episodes of The Voice were pulling in 13 million viewers in 2012. Per TFA, The Voice had 6.71 million viewers the night of Game 1. HALF OF THEIR 2012 VIEWERSHIP. H-A-L-F. Down 6.3 million.

And yes, the marquee event of the MLB season is different than a frequently-airing reality show. But try telling that to the 2012 viewership. It's easy for baseball fans to say it should be different, but both the World Series and The Voice are reality competitions as far as the general audience is concerned. In 2012 they were regarded about the same, in terms of eyeballs and televisions.

Live viewership of national broadcast TV events is down across the board. It's not down nearly as much for MLB, at its core.

All of that is to say some of the drop is probably the matchup, and some is the overall decline in network television viewership. Close to 11 million viewers is actually a pretty good number.

The glee that some of you take in watching the sport you supposedly care about become less and less relevant continues to be odd to me.

It's certainly not glee and I do think starting earlier would make a lot of sense. You wouldn't want games starting at 4pm on the west coast if they only take 2-2.5 hours to finish. But if the shortest they'll be is 3 hours, it wouldn't hurt. Could compromise at a first pitch of 7:30 ET.

But vi's posts get to my ambivalence. Baseball is less relevant than it used to be. Part of me is sad about that. A part that recognizes MLB's unforced errors is angry. But the biggest part of me recognizes that there is a lot more choice in the entertainment market and like every other traditionally popular shows, it turns out that a lot of MLB's market was simply captured. I worry about the future of MLB. But I worry about the future of everything. It's very likely that something I love will not be a part of the landscape 150 years after I'm gone. But that's been true of almost every type of cultural thing ever.

But vi's posts get to my ambivalence. Baseball is less relevant than it used to be. Part of me is sad about that. A part that recognizes MLB's unforced errors is angry. But the biggest part of me recognizes that there is a lot more choice in the entertainment market and like every other traditionally popular shows, it turns out that a lot of MLB's market was simply captured. I worry about the future of MLB. But I worry about the future of everything. It's very likely that something I love will not be a part of the landscape 150 years after I'm gone. But that's been true of almost every type of cultural thing ever.

Fair points (and sorry my snark was mostly for Clapper, the retired guy mocking people for complaining about late end times).

Got it.

I was mostly reacting to my joy at being in bed by 11:30 last night. Rare for the world series. It seemed odd then to hear complaints about game 2. Game 1, I'd have been grousing with you.

But the biggest part of me recognizes that there is a lot more choice in the entertainment market and like every other traditionally popular shows

It's interesting to see my kids' viewing habits. My 13-year old is just starting to get into watching sports a bit, he'll watch a little bit of NFL football, and he's gotten into the MLB playoffs, I think mostly because he plays baseball and he is at the age where he's starting to take it a bit more seriously. But I don't know if sports will grab kids the way they did my generation.* There was a Twitter thread awhile back that made the point about the value of all the shows that previous generations were exposed to that weren't catered to them. I think of all the cultural references I got from watching stupid shows like Golden Girls, Night Court, and Newhart, that weren't kids shows at all, but I watched because there was nothing else on. My kids, OTOH, watch shows that are not only aimed towards kids, but are aimed towards their specific niche of interests - video games, Lego building, trains, anime, whatever. I think we lose something in terms of cultural togetherness, or zeitgeist, or something when we everyone watches their own thing?

*-in fairness, I am probably an outlier as a baseball nerd who can still name everyone on the rosters of the 1987 World Series

In short, more kids need to watch Night Court.

Also, games take way too long, there's no doubt about that.

How many of those games regularly run well over 3 hours, the way that postseason baseball games do?**

CFB games regularly run over 3 hours. The 3:30 SEC game nearly always runs past 7:00 PM. I can't find a source for the playoff games, but here's an article stating that the average game is 3:24.

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/how-long-do-college-football-games-last

More reasons not to watch college football.

I think we lose something in terms of cultural togetherness, or zeitgeist, or something when we everyone watches their own thing?

Hard agree.


Yes, CFB (and NFL) games are too long and the pace is also crap. I don't like football nearly as much as baseball, so I don't watch.

Of course, football is only once a week. Unless you are a Texan and you watch Thursday & Friday nights, three games apiece on Saturday & Sunday, and then another on Monday night.

Last night's game was 3:11. Too long, but about as short as you're going to see in a World Series. It ended at 11:20. Game 1 complaints I get.

Totally. Last night's game was just fine, length-wise. It's almost weird to see the end of a baseball game and not have to go to sleep immediately afterwards.

I think we lose something in terms of cultural togetherness, or zeitgeist, or something when we everyone watches their own thing?

Or another take: it's nice that people get to watch things that interest them. I've seen my share of John Larroquette, and wouldn't mind having seen less than my share.

it's nice that people get to watch things that interest them. I've seen my share of John Larroquette, and wouldn't mind having seen less than my share.

I think RoyalsRetro makes a good point. It's very much related to the issue of political echo chambers. To function as a society, there definitionally needs to be a reasonable level of shared reality. The more everyone gets to customize their own day-to-day reality, the closer we get to losing that.

FWIW, the NCAA football chanmpionship and Stanley Cup Finals began at 8 ET, and the NBA Finals began at 9 ET, and the NCAA basketball championship began at 9:20 ET on a Monday.

I don't typically watch much of the NBA Finals for exactly that reason. Of course, basketball and hockey are timed games so there's kind of a practical upper limit on how long those games can go. Not so much with baseball, when, 3:11 is a short game for the World Series.

Basketball may be a timed game but the clock stops. With media timeouts, a couple dozen timeouts per team (estimated) and an extravaganza halftime, they can turn a fast paced game into a hard to watch affair pretty easily.

I know a lot here aren't soccer fans but keeping pace up and overall time down is something the sport excels at.

I worry about the future of MLB.

I'm not. Like, not at all. It's not a problem for the sport that the TV audience is hyper-fragmented. It's a problem for the networks. They are fighting against not just each other but against a vastly expanding landscape of entertainment options, and changes in viewer habits to go along with it. Like, I watched Game 1, but I was also playing games on my phone and sending emails to my scout troop about upcoming activities and engaging with people on this site. I watched the baseball action but found myriad ways to avoid paying attention to advertisements, be they commercials or short statements embedded in broadcaster narratives. Not only do the networks have to grapple with delivering an audience to advertisers, but they need to contend with the fact that the very nature of audience interaction with the product has changed.

There is still nothing more reliable for the networks to deliver a large audience to advertisers than live major sporting events. You can say the Super Bowl delivers a lot more, but the Super Bowl is one day in a year and the networks have 364 other days to fill. The Super Bowl isn't in October. MLB and the World Series are an easy way to get a large live audience, and networks are still eager to spend a lot of money to get that audience, because the cost to develop other content to capture an audience of that size.

It is a problem on a local level, if interest wanes in the local team. That's bad for baseball in general, as younger fans don't get cultivated as the game becomes less accessible. Greater parity is a help, but in terms of WS appearances we're at a bit of a low point. More on that in a minute.

It's not a problem for the sport that the TV audience is hyper-fragmented. It's a problem for the networks.

Well there is a practical impact on fans already, which is that most of the streaming providers (YouTube TV, etc.) have dropped the RSNs. That's obviously not a direct A to B thing (the RSNs don't just carry baseball, they appear to be run by idiots, etc.), but still, it's something to factor in.

I'm worried about the profitability of MLB but not for its existence. The ship sailed a long time ago on attracting the very best athletes to the sport but there are still more talented bodies than can find space in other sports. I do think fragmentation is a serious threat to the business model of MLB but they are hardly alone in that. Mostly, things change. So will MLB and sports fandom.

Could compromise at a first pitch of 7:30 ET.

7:50 ET would be 20 minutes earlier and nobody would even notice. They don't need 40 minutes of pre-game. I'd get to watch another inning of the actual game before I head to bed.

Or another take: it's nice that people get to watch things that interest them. I've seen my share of John Larroquette, and wouldn't mind having seen less than my share.

Oh I totally agree, and particularly for people that have been traditionally marginalized in mainstream culture. Just saying there may be a bit of a downside as well.

It's not a problem for the sport that the TV audience is hyper-fragmented. It's a problem for the networks.

Yep. It should be noted that as recently as 2020, TBS paid $3.75 billion for baseball. And in the original article for this thread, this is the important part:

Fox’s telecast of Atlanta’s 6-2 game one victory over Houston averaged 10.81 million viewers, leading all of primetime by a substantial margin

Basketball may be a timed game but the clock stops.

I think the point may have predictability of the total game time. Someone shared how every NHL game last year was between 2:15 and 2:45, in length. I suspect basketball is pretty close to that? You can get away with starting that game at 8 PM since you are pretty certain it will end around 10:30.

OK, everything I'm about to say about parity is looking at who has made the World Series. Parity over a whole season is much more than that, but we're talking about WS TV ratings, so I'm going to stick with the WS teams. Secondly, I'm going to define my analytical window as a 15-year span. I figure if you're trying to cultivate fandom in younger folks then the window is from ages 6 to 20, which is 15 years. If your team makes the WS in that span, you might become a fan - or at least enough of a fan that whenever that team is in the WS again you might tune in.

To get at this I'm going to take the ratio of {number of distinct franchises that played in the last 15 WS} to {average number of teams in the last 15 seasons}. If there was perfect theoretical parity then in a 15 year span the ratio should be 100%, as there are at most 30 WS contestant slots in that span, and at most 30 teams in the league. (It is possible for the ratio to go over 100%, as you could have all 30 teams make it within a 15 year span where there was an average of fewer than 30 teams. But nothing like this has happened at any point in history, so never mind.) So when I look at 2021 for example, I'm looking at the number of franchises to have made at least one WS appearance in the 15 year span from 2007 to 2021, and then dividing that by 30 because there were 30 teams in each of those seasons.

It is a bit surprising to me that the high point was 1926-28, with a ratio of 88%. In the 15 year sample from 1914 to 1928 for example 11 of the 30 slots are taken up by the Yankees or Giants alone. But that leaves 19 slots for 14 more teams, and 12 of them did it. (Everyone made it except the Tigers - who made it in 1909 and 1935, missing this 15-year window - and the Browns.) It seems the way I've constructed this will get some extremes in the early years.

It dropped soon after, bottoming out in 1935-38, when the ratio was 50%. Again, in 1924 to 1938 for example we had 11 slots taken by the Yankees and Giants. But the other 19 slots were taken up by only six teams (Tigers, Cardinals, A's, Cubs, Senators, Pirates).

The next high was 75% from 1936 to 1950. The next low was 54% from 1949 to 1963. It ebbed and flowed. Up to 72% in 1954-1968. Down to 49% in 1965-1979. Up to 69% in 1978-1992; down to 50% in 1989-2003. Aaaaaand it's been in the 50s almost every year since then - it hasn't gone higher than 61%.

What has changed from 2003 onward is that we have more teams with many WS appearances in a window, but the number of appearances per team has dropped. In 1989 to 2003 we had multiple appearances by the Braves, Yankees, Jays, A's, Marlins, and Indians, for 19 slots, but NY and Atlanta were 11 of those. In 2007 to 2021 we have the Dodgers, Astros, Red Sox, Giants, Cardinals, Rangers, Royals, Rays, and Phillies with multiple appearances, combining for 22 slots - but no single team has more than three appearances. What I find fascinating is that those two lists of teams don't overlap at all. From a parity perspective it's actually a great thing! Well, maybe not for the Pirates and Brewers and Mariners and the other teams that didn't get there in either of those windows. And from a World-Series-as-building-the-fanbase-for-MLB it's not great because it's over a much longer span. And there are bigger issues - particularly length and/or pace of game - that cause pain for the viewer as well. *Those* are the things that worry me about baseball popularity.

(EDITed for a little more clarity.)

One issue is that the vast majority of MLB games are now broadcast on RSNs that have nothing else to show, really. They probably don't mind the 3:11 average regular season game time -- just gives them more time to capture eyeballs? More time on bar TVs? There's certainly a theoretical point where the average game could become so long as to turn off viewers entirely, but as much as we complain, I'm not sure 3:11 is it, for an RSN.

3:38 average for 9-inning postseason games would be closer to that tipping point, and of course postseason games are on national networks with other content, so they're more likely to be concerned too.

Yeah, 3:11 isn't the measure. That was weirdly low.

Game 1 was ridiculous at > 4 hrs. Even this ATL resident had to go to sleep after 7 inn when it was 1130. For fun, I looked up the WS G1 that I attended (1979), and it ran 3:18. At that time, it was the longest 9-inning WS game ever. Of course, since it was 40 and damp that night, and I was a 5-ft 100-lb freshman, it felt longer at the time.

Mike Petriello went back and found World Series game times have been 8 ET for decades. What's different is (a) no more day games; and (b) they take forever now.

Game 1 was ridiculous at > 4 hrs.

The worst game of the entire postseason had to be game 2 of the ALCS watching Jake Odorizzi warm up for half an hour.

I agree that the games take too long, and should start exactly at 7:30 after 1/2 pre-game, but there are other factors at work.

A) Everyone in this discussion is - by rule - older than they used to be.

B) Hockey and NBA finals are in June when people are outdoors until 8 or 8:30. I feel like I always have more to do in October, and feel way more tired at 9 pm in October than 9 pm in June.

MPEs for the first two WS games: 2.34 and 2.05. Normal.

. . . sorry my snark was mostly for Clapper, the retired guy mocking people for complaining about late end times

Actually, #8 was mostly a homage to more than a century of BITD comments chiding players.

Now it’s probably true than more people currently work at sedentary jobs, and/or flexible ones, where missing a bit of beauty sleep doesn’t have that much impact. Kids may be another matter. However, the time zones and need to score some west coast ratings are as big a factor as the length of the games. No quick fix likely.

I think RoyalsRetro makes a good point. It's very much related to the issue of political echo chambers. To function as a society, there definitionally needs to be a reasonable level of shared reality. The more everyone gets to customize their own day-to-day reality, the closer we get to losing that.

100% true, and RR's post was also spot-on, but hopefully the irony of the descent of BTF itself into a place where people expect to be catered to isn't being missed here.