NFT: World Series Game 7 Tonight

baseball's economics you know that the sport has never been in better financial shape, attendance has never been better and the local TV deals are enormous. Exhibit A is the payrolls as 24 MLB teams had payrolls this season north of $85 million. The NBA had 2 (both NY teams). The NBA should be proud of it's national TV deal, but MLB is cleaning up on the local level to a degree that the NBA simply has yet to approach.

In comment 11948233 speedywheels said:

Quote:

In comment 11948194 MookGiants said: Quote: In comment 11948116 speedywheels said: Quote: In comment 11947744 MookGiants said: Quote: Think they played with fire rolling 39 year old Hudson and Affeldt out there for the first 4 innings. Hudson has been pretty damn lousy in the playoffs too I thought Bochy played that perfectly - he took Hudson out at the first sign of trouble. Personally I would have went with Petit instead of Affeldt, but Bochy certainly knows his guys. Again, I didn't have an issue with Hudson since he is a veteran and has been in big games before. If his choice was Vogelsong (or anyone else for that matter) - then yeah, I would have chosen Bumgarner no question... Giants have been pretty lousy at drafting position players under Sabean but g-ddamn, they know how to grow pitchers!

You bring in Affeldt because he hasn't given up a run in forever and he's a lefthander facing a heavily left handed lineup. Petit had given up 5 hits in his WS appearances.

Every sport is in the best financial shape theyve ever been. Its hard to argue that baseball has ever been any less relevant than it is now though.

With regards to payroll, get back to me when the cap rises from the national tv deal that doubled baseball up. That was a game changer, and when it kicks in the landscape changes even more

baseball still does well regionally. All in all, they and the nba are still highly comparable in terms of popularity. But if you cant see how things are trending, i dont know what to tell you. And when you look at the demographics, this is a trend that has not even come close to reaching its peak. The average age of the world series viewer was 55. Where does that put them a generation from now?

In comment 11948243 MarshallOnMontana said:

Quote:

I was reacting to the comment about the terrible product, i may have missed his point. But i kind of dismiseed the rest of the post after that as an old man rant from a young man. Complaining about advertisements as if thats unique to the nba, calling the nba "not a game but a cheesy production", generally isnt a comment worthy of much back and forth

Then you really did miss the point. I sit through 3.5 hour football games where they play football for about 20 minutes. I get that ads are part of sports, especially popular sports.

This wasn't just an ad. This was an agenda to promote themselves as a beacon of celebrity involvement as much as it was an ad for Taylor Swift. The Knicks announcers were clamoring over her when they should've been subdued as the hometown team was getting schooled in their home opener.

Nobody involved really seemed to care about what was happening on the court.

This wasn't just an ad. It both an ad for Taylor Swift and a self-gratifying "look at us, Taylor Swift is here!" message. No one really cared what was happening with the New York Knicks.

Because i could see this completely derailing into an nba vs mlb thing, which wasnt my intention believe it or not.

I understand ads are a very big part of a game and the driving financial force. You decided to change my post into me saying ads are stupid and the players suck.

In comment 11948002 MarshallOnMontana said:

Quote:

The preliminary numbers for game 7 almost double the audience for every other game of the series. They needed a game 7 to boost the rating of what otherwise has been a trainwreck, and they got it. Series was averaging a 7.3 rating through 6 games, looks like it did about a 14 to 15 last night, which could be the biggest audience in a decade. Should lift the series average into the 8.3 to 8.5 range. It will still fall short of the nba finals for a 5th consecutive year, even though this years finals only went 5 games that were largely uncompetitive to boot but last night was a very good number for baseball. This series absolutely needed it.

Haha yeah Joe... that wasn't your intention at all.

In comment 11948265 MarshallOnMontana said:

Quote:

Every sport is in the best financial shape theyve ever been. Its hard to argue that baseball has ever been any less relevant than it is now though. With regards to payroll, get back to me when the cap rises from the national tv deal that doubled baseball up. That was a game changer, and when it kicks in the landscape changes even more baseball still does well regionally. All in all, they and the nba are still highly comparable in terms of popularity. But if you cant see how things are trending, i dont know what to tell you. And when you look at the demographics, this is a trend that has not even come close to reaching its peak. The average age of the world series viewer was 55. Where does that put them a generation from now?

If you want to measure relevance in terms word series ratings I don't know what to tell you. Other numbers tell a more complete story, e.g. attendance where 15 MLB teams average more than 30k a game. You really think it's all a bunch of geezers in attendance? Keep in mind that's over 81 games.

And folks have already predicted how far NBA payrolls will increase, and they will still fall way short of where most MLB payrolls were LAST year.

The demographics have been trending the same way for years yet the regional baseball networks have made long term bets in the billions on MLB. I think they know what they're doing. The friggin Texas Rangers get $80 million a year on their local TV deal. That's before they sell a single ticket, dip into the mlb.com money (which is huge), or their national TV deal. Money talks.

I will respond to you before bouncing because you do deserve a response, which you never got directly on your main gripe

if i dont like something, i dont watch. I think im like 99 percent of people. This fantasy land you paint where a big portion of the audience is tuning in just to see who is sitting courtside is well beyond ridiculous

Payrolls is a silly judgement because there is a cap and you know as well as anyone that maintaining flexibility is a basketball strategy for team building, not necessarily an indication of lack of finances

In comment 11948300 MarshallOnMontana said:

Quote:

Payrolls is a silly judgement because there is a cap and you know as well as anyone that maintaining flexibility is a basketball strategy for team building, not necessarily an indication of lack of finances

MLB teams do the same thing with payroll.Regardless, we can look at revenues:
MLB last year: $8.0-$8.5 billion
NBA last year: $4.6 billion
(per Forbes)

And this is after 10+ years of LeBron, probably the most well known athlete (excluding soccer) in the world being center stage.

And those figures dont account for the new national tv deal which doesnt kick in for 2 more years, triples the deal they are currently operating under and doubles baseballs deal. They also have a slew of local tv deals coming up for renogiation in the next 2 years.

Within a decade, the nba should surpass mlb in revenues as well. Within a generation, we wont even recognize them as competitors. A generation ago, they werent even on the same planet

thats it for me though, mean it this time.

This thread is all over the place.

In comment 11948348 MarshallOnMontana said:

Quote:

And those figures dont account for the new national tv deal which doesnt kick in for 2 more years, triples the deal they are currently operating under and doubles baseballs deal. They also have a slew of local tv deals coming up for renogiation in the next 2 years. Within a decade, the nba should surpass mlb in revenues as well. Within a generation, we wont even recognize them as competitors. A generation ago, they werent even on the same planet thats it for me though, mean it this time.

and then MLB will leapfrog them when their deal is up. Discount it all you want, but the fact that the NBA is still WAY behind MLB in revenues in a post MJ/LeBron/globalization world tells a lot more of the story than the World Series ratings you bring up every year. Even the national TV deal is still only part of the story as MLB simply kills NBA in attendance and local TV money. Not to mention online revenue.

It is commonly accepted that your risk of injury increases when you dive into first base. That may be so, but why does it seem like you have a lot more injuries from people trying to lengthen a stride to hit first? Hamstrings and lower-body injuries are pretty common. And if it were simply a matter of crossing a line I think it would be cut and dry, but you have to land on a base that may not be timed with a sprinting stride.

In comment 11948373 Enzo said:

Quote:

In comment 11948348 MarshallOnMontana said: Quote: And those figures dont account for the new national tv deal which doesnt kick in for 2 more years, triples the deal they are currently operating under and doubles baseballs deal. They also have a slew of local tv deals coming up for renogiation in the next 2 years. Within a decade, the nba should surpass mlb in revenues as well. Within a generation, we wont even recognize them as competitors. A generation ago, they werent even on the same planet thats it for me though, mean it this time. and then MLB will leapfrog them when their deal is up. Discount it all you want, but the fact that the NBA is still WAY behind MLB in revenues in a post MJ/LeBron/globalization world tells a lot more of the story than the World Series ratings you bring up every year. Even the national TV deal is still only part of the story as MLB simply kills NBA in attendance and local TV money. Not to mention online revenue.

The MLB has twice the number of games and they're played in much larger venues, it would be pretty embarrassing if they didn't surpass them in attendance. I'm not much of a basketball fan, I generally don't watch non-Knicks games (and as bad as they've been that limits my options) and on the whole I find basketball pretty boring, but I certainly understand that people feel differently.

More than injury, though, diving into first base is a bad decision because it's slower than simply running through the base.

In comment 11948623 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

More than injury, though, diving into first base is a bad decision because it's slower than simply running through the base.

But that's my second point. It is conventional smart-people wisdom that it is slower, but it's not just a question of covering the distance. You have to land in stride on a particular piece of real estate. That means you likely have to lengthen or shorten your stride to do it. If so how much difference does it make for the average runner?

But I can't say I remember having to alter my stride all that much to hit the bag. Then again, I'm slower than molassas.

MLB attendance numbers to other sports, it's comparing the rise in MLB attendance to what they used to draw during their so called "golden age or even 20-30 years ago.
"In 1992, nearly half the teams in the sport (12 of 26) drew less than 2 million customers. By 2013, the 30 clubs averaged nearly 2.5 million per franchise, with eight of them topping 3 million."
Keep in mind this has taken place as most teams are playing in smaller stadiums. Surging revenue and attendance does not indicate a sport in decline.

In comment 11948635 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

But I can't say I remember having to alter my stride all that much to hit the bag. Then again, I'm slower than molassas.

It's probably an instinctive adjustment you make as you get closer, but your sprinter stride whether you are tall or short is going to cover several feet so intuitively you're unlikely to be primed to land perfectly on the bag.

In comment 11948638 Enzo said:

Quote:

MLB attendance numbers to other sports, it's comparing the rise in MLB attendance to what they used to draw during their so called "golden age or even 20-30 years ago. "In 1992, nearly half the teams in the sport (12 of 26) drew less than 2 million customers. By 2013, the 30 clubs averaged nearly 2.5 million per franchise, with eight of them topping 3 million." Keep in mind this has taken place as most teams are playing in smaller stadiums. Surging revenue and attendance does not indicate a sport in decline.

It's a fair point and a good one, but attendance peaked in the last decade, at the tail end of the steroid era, and has fallen slightly and plateaued since then. Increases in attendance tracked population increases and expansion more than particular increases in enthusiasm, though minor league baseball has become popular in the same timeframe. Baseball has largely disappeared from network television in most places absent a game of the week and the postseason (really just the WS, FS1 had a number of postseason games). As a percentage, fewer people are watching the World Series unless it's the Yankees, Cards or the Sox or a mid-market that has been absent for awhile. They did a good job taking advantage of new media and that is positive, but on the whole things aren't particularly promising. With the retirement of Jeter who in the game is truly recognizable to non-fans? Maybe David Ortiz, maybe.

the game, because the exiting one sure as hell didn't. For God's sake, play an afternoon World Series game for once so kids can actually watch it rather than be in bed by the third inning!

Afternoon World Series games, those were the days!

It's to the point now where you get excited when the NLCS and ALCS are on the same day and one plays at 4:30!

In comment 11948348 MarshallOnMontana said:

Quote:

Within a decade, the nba should surpass mlb in revenues as well. Within a generation, we wont even recognize them as competitors. A generation ago, they werent even on the same planet

Congrats! Job well done. What do you win?

And believing people were 5-1 or even 4-2 in favor of you trolling the game 2 thread is hilarious. First, 4 people might have made one passing 1 or 2 line post to the comment. That hardly shows significant interest in the subject that has been discussed ad nausuem on this site now.

Second, Mook and I were just the only ones who bothered to call you out on it. Most people just ignore you at this point.

But by all means, proceed with your mission to prove that basketball is just the bestest.

In comment 11948684 MetsAreBack said:

Quote:

Congrats! Job well done. What do you win?

In comment 11948254 Peter in Atlanta said:

Quote:

In comment 11948233 speedywheels said: Quote: In comment 11948194 MookGiants said: Quote: In comment 11948116 speedywheels said: Quote: In comment 11947744 MookGiants said: Quote: Think they played with fire rolling 39 year old Hudson and Affeldt out there for the first 4 innings. Hudson has been pretty damn lousy in the playoffs too I thought Bochy played that perfectly - he took Hudson out at the first sign of trouble. Personally I would have went with Petit instead of Affeldt, but Bochy certainly knows his guys. Again, I didn't have an issue with Hudson since he is a veteran and has been in big games before. If his choice was Vogelsong (or anyone else for that matter) - then yeah, I would have chosen Bumgarner no question... Giants have been pretty lousy at drafting position players under Sabean but g-ddamn, they know how to grow pitchers! You bring in Affeldt because he hasn't given up a run in forever and he's a lefthander facing a heavily left handed lineup. Petit had given up 5 hits in his WS appearances.

And Petit had been lights out the entire playoffs before that, and was getting out both lefties and righties very consistently. Not to mention that Petit could have gone deeper in the game that Affeldt could, if need be. Obviously, Bochy knew he was going to bring in Bumgarner so he didn't need a long guy...

In comment 11948219 MookGiants said:

Quote:

is also a NY'er for those that didn't know. Went to St. John's 2009 and 2010, went to John Jay high school I believe

Yeah he went to John Jay in Dutchess County (also where I went, although I graduated in 2004). I have friends who played on travel teams and stuff with him, plus he was on the Varsity team when he was in 8th Grade (my Senior year), so even though I don't know him, a lot my friends do, and everyone's pretty pumped here. I was actually rooting for KC, but a local guy from my High School winning, and making a huge play is pretty awesome.

In comment 11948034 MarshallOnMontana said:

Quote:

In comment 11948024 UConn4523 said: Quote: and those making money (Leagues/Owners), who really cares about TV ratings? enough that there are several successfull websites dedicated solely to the dissemination of such information. Enough that virtually every major newspaper covers them to some degree. You may not care, many people do have an interest

Thad all white noise, there's websites and companies devoted to the dumbest shit on the planet. It's like saying the waterboy is a good movie since it did well at the box office.

I don't care about NBA ratings on a MLB thread. You come off as having AJ agenda and its rubs people the wrong way. Who cares about TV ratings yet again?

Let's talk about the celebration. I obviously don't condone riots, nor are they ever appropriate. But, if your team loses, it's at least understandable where one of those riots may come from, especially with very drunken idiots. But, how the Hell do you riot after a win? What is the thought process there?

I don't think you would ever see this scene in NYC after a win or loss...ever.

a lousy NFL game on NFL Network more than doubled the viewers of the LeBron homecoming game. The power of the NFL.

season NBA game since maybe 2004?

Don't get me wrong, NBA players are freakishly talented and are on another planet when it comes to what they do but watching those games and story lines the media tries to create are so uninteresting. Last night was everything about the NBA that I hate. Lebron lost in his homecoming party to the Knicks. Wow. Who cares? Not me certainly. Not to say that I'm watching every baseball game every day in the summer but I'm not going to pretend like the NBA games arent a snooze fest, for me personally. Same goes with college basketball. Whether the ratings are up or not, I think that I have a firm grasp on what I can choose to watch or not to watch.

Boring beyond words.

I'd rather watch a Wolves-76ers game in mid January than Game 7 of the World Series.

than read your posts

maybe you were being facetious, but "San Fran Giants fan" poster doesn't like baseball? ....and wouldn't watch the team he named his handle after in Game 7?

It's early in the morning, I apologize if I missed the sarcasm.


By the way, I liked how JoeMP kept referring to "we" as far as the NBA and its ratings vs baseball. As if he has anything to do whatsoever with the NBA. Narcissism at its best.

In comment 11950600 SanFranGiantsFan said:

Quote:

I'd rather watch a Wolves-76ers game in mid January than Game 7 of the World Series.

I like you as a poster, but man do you really love to inject your hatred for baseball. Especially you, someone who loves politics and appreciates Anerican history cannot grasp the importance of baseball in our society from a historical standpoint.

Let's keep in mind about baseball too, while it isn't the same from a national perspective, regionally it dominated in the ratings from all the local teams, so people still do care.

In comment 11950612 MetsAreBack said:

Quote:

maybe you were being facetious, but "San Fran Giants fan" poster doesn't like baseball? ....and wouldn't watch the team he named his handle after in Game 7? It's early in the morning, I apologize if I missed the sarcasm. By the way, I liked how JoeMP kept referring to "we" as far as the NBA and its ratings vs baseball. As if he has anything to do whatsoever with the NBA. Narcissism at its best.

His handle is not about the baseball team.

In comment 11950668 Exit 172 said:

Quote:

In comment 11950612 MetsAreBack said: Quote: maybe you were being facetious, but "San Fran Giants fan" poster doesn't like baseball? ....and wouldn't watch the team he named his handle after in Game 7? It's early in the morning, I apologize if I missed the sarcasm. By the way, I liked how JoeMP kept referring to "we" as far as the NBA and its ratings vs baseball. As if he has anything to do whatsoever with the NBA. Narcissism at its best. His handle is not about the baseball team.

maybe he didn't enjoy the rioting that occurred after each SF Giants WS victories

In comment 11950668 Exit 172 said:

Quote:

His handle is not about the baseball team.

I mean i'm not sure why I should care - but if "San Fran Giants fan" isn't about the baseball team, then what is it about? I mean "Mets are Back" isn't about the Mets? You don't have anything to do with Exit 172 off some turnpike?

What is this world coming to?

.

In comment 11950752 MetsAreBack said:

Quote:

In comment 11950668 Exit 172 said: Quote: His handle is not about the baseball team. I mean i'm not sure why I should care - but if "San Fran Giants fan" isn't about the baseball team, then what is it about? I mean "Mets are Back" isn't about the Mets? You don't have anything to do with Exit 172 off some turnpike? What is this world coming to?

Watch your fucking tone. Highway signs are everything. Some turnpike? I think it's the GSP he's referring to...

"Sarcasm off"

In comment 11950757 arcarsenal said:

Quote:

.

Well then that's just a very poorly thought out handle (unlike MAB). SanFranNYGiantsFan... or SanFranNYGfan.... much much clearer.

In comment 11950792 MetsAreBack said:

Quote:

In comment 11950757 arcarsenal said: Quote: . Well then that's just a very poorly thought out handle (unlike MAB). SanFranNYGiantsFan... or SanFranNYGfan.... much much clearer.

I actually think MetsAreBack is one of the worst handles on here. No offense. You include a baseball team in your handle on a football message board? Kind of ...odd. Unless you're yankees78 ;-)

Plus, Mets are back from what?

How is it his fault if he lives in SF and there's a Giants team there? It's not as lame as "NewJerseyGiantsFan" !!

The Mets were making a resurgence back around that time. They were one swing away from a WS they almost certainly would have won the next year. Looks silly now since they've reverted to sucking for the past 6 years or so.. but, hey.. the hindsight thing. Can't blame the guy. Pedro and Beltran had just jumped on board, it was an exciting time for Met fans.

plus, it still works:

-Mets are back.. to sucking

-Mets are back... to the golf course

Anyway, I could change it but that would be very JoeMP of me (though I do admit that MoM is a very good handle)

I will say though, how strange that someone thinks mentioning a baseball team on a football message board is "one of the worst handles here" Just wreaks of an agenda.

First of all, its proven fact that anything with a "z" in the handle is the worst. Second, no offense to Greg from LI.... but (Person X) from (Place Y) ... sounds like someone calling into WFAN. Lacks any originality whatsoever.

And Finally, since we're on the subject, I just want to say that the worst poster here is Brett. There, cat's out of the bag. Happy Saturday Brett. Mediocre Fuck.

is a compliment to that cock gobbler

Yeah?

The "z" is terrible. What was that one nitwit we had, BeeZ?

And I haven't lived in that area in over 10 years.