“Understand this: The minor-league players, the player you’ll never know about, the players that never get out of rookie ball or high-A, those players have as much impact on the growth of our game as 10-year or 15-year veteran players.
I think it's as simple as the fact that there is a lot more competition for your time and attention (let alone your entertainment dollar). Phones, video games, sports of every size and shape on your TV on demand and you don't have to sit around for 4 hours to see how it ends. We live in a short attention span world...….
Does anyone else find this interesting- and troubling- that there has been so little response and interaction on this blog post. I’d guess most of Joe’s readers are baseball fans. And a lot of his posts- here and at the Athletic site generate tons of responses and often a lot of good discussion. This one- talking about the future of baseball- meh, not so much.
There is a real problem with the future of baseball. I’m one of the old guys who grew up on baseball. Playing as a kid. When I was a kid I lived in 2 houses in the suburbs. At both locations there were empty lots and fields nearby where most every day we would go out and play ‘500’ and other baseball related activities. Didn’t have enough players to play much of a game. Maybe 7-8 of us total. But we had gloves, bats, and balls and engaged in baseball activities. At both of those locations, those empty lots are long, long gone- housing subdivisions. Also played whiffle ball in the back yard. Does anyone play whiffle ball any more? Getting the room to play baseball isn’t as easy today. You need your parents to take you to somewhere. A basketball hoop can be set up in a driveway.
If MLB plays this year- which I’m beginning to doubt- a lot of it will be without fans attending. Maybe a sneak peek at the future of baseball? When games are only televised. Why spend hundreds of millions on big stadiums? Just create a small field for the players and set up for tv cameras. Have a virtual interacting of fans online. Creating virtual crowd noise. Maybe creating a way to simulate aromas- hot dogs, beer, etc thru our devices. And the evolution can continue - at some point programmable robots can become the players. A completely virtual sport. Woo-hoo!
Yes, baseball has problems, but I think that the biggest problem baseball has is that it has denied its own heritage.
Of all the major American sports baseball was unique in that success depended on sustained excellence over the course of 5 months. Other sports played a regular season to eliminate only 40-60% of the teams before starting the "real season" - the playoffs. Not baseball - to win the Championship you had to demonstrate you were THE best over the course of a season not just one of the best. There was a real sense of accomplishment in winning the pennant and then the World Series. You couldn't be an 85 win team that got hot for 4 weeks.
1968 is considered a watershed year for American society, but it was also a watershed year for Baseball. That was the year it was decided that you didn't have to be the best, just "sort of" the best to compete for the championship. That was the thin edge of the wedge that led to 4 team divisions and wild card teams in the playoffs.
So Baseball is no longer unique - it is, in fact, a cheap copy of the other major sports, so why not prefer the originals? Baseball needs to stop trying to be the NFL or NBA. It needs to go back to being itself.
For those who think that getting more teams into the postseason increased interest I can only go by personal experience. I grew up in Detroit in the 50's - we were ALWAYS looking up at the Yankees. But there was a nobility in the yearly struggle. Some years, such as 1961 were satisfying when we just got close to the Yankees. I believe that there is no nobility in "sneaking in" to the playoffs as a good second place team.
The domestic champion in European soccer leagues is the team that finishes top of the standings at the end of the year. No playoffs, no Wild Cards - win the league or don't. The EPL, LA Liga and the Bundesliga don't seem to be hurting.
This is somewhat similar to what happened to Indiana high school basketball about 20 years ago. The tournament to win the state championship at the end of the year was every schools in one tournament- not segregated by school size. The tournament was immensely popular. Attendance at games was high. Tv ratings were good. The small school’s year could be made by upsetting the big school down the road in the sectionals or regionals. Then they went to a class based set of tournaments. Interest dropped fast. Per game attendance plummeted, tv ratings went down. The tournament no longer has the cachet it once had.
I'm curious when the 60 Greatest Moments series will continue. I can certainly empathize with what a drain current events can be, but I truly miss those daily morning articles from you.
I answered my own question. I missed the editorial comment at the end of Moment #31 about resuming the week of June 8th. I usually dive right past that intro paragraph into the latest essay.
Great post. I've always liked Dayton Moore, even if he's not the most Sabermetrically inclined. But seeing what they've done is just awesome, and should be followed by all teams. Never understood why minor leaguers were treated so crappy - spend a few million more on salary and facilities, and if you develop one extra big leaguer it's worth it (and that's not getting into the moral argument of treating people fairly).
But seeing this labor stuff play out, and how short sighted the owners are, reminds me so much of the last season of Brockmire. It was meant to be a parody but was so close to the truth
Too many divisional games. As a Tigers fan, I hate hate hate that they play nearly half the season against the Twins, Royals, White Sox and Indians. This many games against those lousy teams breeds enmity, and so few games against other teams causes unfamiliarity.
The reason you knew so many African American players from the 70s and 80s and so on is because you actually saw them play, and they played enough games against your team to prove that they were actually good. Right now, the Tigers play Anaheim 6 times a year. Usually, 2 of those games are 10pm west coast starts, and for some reason the Tigers will throw in a weekday matinee game just to reduce the chance I get to see MIke Trout play.
They used to have what they called the "balanced schedule." Each team in each league played each other the same number of times (more or less). People (I'm not sure who. Broadcasters? Managers? Fans?) complained that there were not enough division games. You could get to the end of the season and not have many or any division games in September, which was viewed as a problem if you were in a dogfight for the division. Hence, along about the time they introduced interleague play they went to the unbalanced schedule. A lot more games against division opponents, a lot less against other teams.
I don't have a strong opinion on which is better. I guess it depends on the year. If the Royals are chasing the Indians for the division, I sure want to play the Indians at the end of the season if I am the Royals. If I'm the Indians, maybe I'd prefer not to play the Royals so it is harder for the Royals to catch us.
As an A's season ticket holder to I get tired of the Mariners and Rangers? Yes. I'd sure love more games against the Yankees and Red Sox, but so would every team in the league. Do I lament that we only see Tampa Bay or Detroit one time a year? Not really.
I don't think balanced schedule means what you think it means. When I started watching baseball, almost 50 years ago, teams played 18 games per year against their own division teams and 12 each against the other division in their league. The schedule was called balanced because everyone in the division played each opponent the same number of times and there were no advantages (within the division) based on schedule.
That being said, there are still more division games per team now (@25) and that is too many, especially with four divisions in the league plus interleague games. There is also the fact that due to outdated "natural rival" interleague, there can be (and have been) divisions decided by strength of schedule of opponents, which is wrong. I truly believe everyone within a division must play identical schedules to decide that division.
So, despite not agreeing about the definition of balanced, I do agree that there should be a little less division games, and definitely an identical schedule within the division.
I agree. As a Mets fan, I have no special interest in endless games against the Phils and Nats.
Hell, I don't need the Mets to play them to hate them, right?
Also, I'm fine with inter-league, but having to play the Yanks EVERY year is boring. They played the Angels back in 2017 and it was GREAT! Mike Trout put on a show at CitiField and even though the Mets were annihilated, it was great.
I'd love a balanced schedule. And, hell, since we have inter-league play and the separate leagues don't mean anything anymore, make it really balanced, at least to a degree.
So I have some agreements: baseball IS a sport with an aging fan base. It's also a sport where, fretfully, African-Americans are less a part of the game. However, I have some nitpicks with this argument:
1. Football is America's 'favorite' sport. But does every football fan love college football? The NFL? High school football? How many football fans are passionate about the NFL, college ball, high school football AND the AFL and potential minor leagues? I'd bet most football fans are BIG fans of one of those, with maybe a secondary love.
2. Basketball is a rising sport. How many basketball fans are NBA fans? College football fans? How many love high school football, or the D-League? How many are fans of all of them combined? Again, I hear plenty of "I'm not a fan of how (insert the NBA, college ball, or both) is played" from basketball fans.
Overall, I am not concerned about less interest in every aspect of baseball. I AM concerned with fans not being interested in Major League Baseball. I think MLB has some big structural problems with payroll (small market teams, like my Indians, feel trapped and screwed) and its earned a stigma which it must shake.
I have a secondary issue with the 'lack of African-Americans' in the game. For decades the biggest star in baseball was...Derek Jeter. A biracial athlete. The biggest star(s) in Detroit? David Ortiz & Manny Ramirez. Yes, they're both from Latin America, but they are also unquestionably black. On my Indians we have Francisco Lindor. There is no lack of diversity on the baseball field.
In fact, I would argue that baseball is the closest to resembling the United States, demographically, of all the major sports. Is it perfect? Of course not, but they're far closer than the NBA, NFL, or NHL. Overall, I do not find the argument that baseball's diversity, or lack thereof, is its biggest issue.
I think MLB should try to bring its best product to more audiences across the US. I would propose the interleague rivalries play in minor league stadiums. The Indians should play the Reds in Columbus, Akron, Dayton, Lexington, and Indianapolis. The New York Mets and Yankees should face off in Staten Island, Albany, Rochester, etc. Make the MLB games more accessible to a wider audience. Just one idea that would be cool.
This is one issue where the use of "African Americans" is appropriate. Baseball's problem is not necessarily diversity, but the ability to reach and be available to poorer Americans. Of the stars you cherry picked above, only Derek Jeter was born in the US, and he was middle class at worst.
The problem with baseball and African Americans is twofold. The first is baseball is an expensive sport to play in today's times. This means less lower middle class and below participants, and this affects African Americans disproportionately.
The youth leagues have a lot of travel and expense. This make the best leagues only available to middle class and up. I played until I was 22, and in today's environment would have played a little as a youth in second rate leagues. Maybe in high school if I was lucky enough to be in a school with a program. (My high school did not have one, but there were plenty of affordable options when I was young) I would not have had the chance to play after high school.
The second is the fact that even if you are able to play, and you are a multi sport athlete, why would anyone play baseball? There is less a portion of the revenue devoted to players in baseball than any other sport if you make it. In the minor leagues, you are owned by your team and paid less than minimum wage for several years. The other sports get paid more, and more quickly. They take less time to get past the point where you make the league minimum and start making great money, and less of a percentage of draft picks make it to that point at all.
Next time you count stars, count African American stars. Born here. Compare it to the list Joe has up top. He pulls 30 off of the top of his head. Last year there only 68 out of 882 players on opening day rosters or injured or restricted lists, which means about 58 on active rosters. That is less than two per team on a the 25 man roster.
Lack of availability to play the sport to begin with, inability to compete financially with other leagues for homegrown star athletes when there is one who plays baseball.
There are plenty of people of color from other countries. That is because baseball can draft these guys at age 16, the peanuts they make in the minor leagues might be an upgrade for the poor in another country, and there is not competition from other leagues.
None of that means the systemic problem of disenfranchising those who make less money in the the US from the time of their youth is not a major problem, both for the MLB getting future players, as well as future fans.
Totally agree about baseball resembling the US better than the other sports.
Another point is you're an athletic young teen growing up in this country and you want to pursue a professional sport career look at the options out there....
NFL - lots of availibility, but hugely competetive and a very short career. No minor league to help you develop.
NBA - small rosters, but no minor league to help you develop, though they are trying to get that going.
MLS- I don't know much about this league, but I'm assuming it pays less, though you could make much more in other countries?
MLB - Pays well, lots of spots, minor league to help you develop.
Maybe the problem is that kids don't find it exciting? It doesn't seem like MLB as a whole is something people follow anymore, besides their own team. Why that is, I don't know.
Uhhhhh! No minor leagues for NFL and NBA? Guess you forgot about college sports. Lot of teaching and a much better lifestyle overall than endless road games on a bus.
Ortiz and Ramirez are the biggest stars in Detroit? News to me!
Your point about overall diversity vs. representation by African-Americans specifically is a good one. Don't have the stats but I would guess the % of players in the MLB who are Asian also exceeds other leagues.
This is also a good argument as to why killing minor league teams is a terrible idea. Yeah, maybe it’s not set up in the most efficient way, and yeah, there’s been lots of turnover in minor league teams over the years, but if you are trying to grow the game - hell, trying to grow the business - don’t you want MORE baseball? Not less?
I think it's as simple as the fact that there is a lot more competition for your time and attention (let alone your entertainment dollar). Phones, video games, sports of every size and shape on your TV on demand and you don't have to sit around for 4 hours to see how it ends. We live in a short attention span world...….
You are a great ambassador for baseball.
Does anyone else find this interesting- and troubling- that there has been so little response and interaction on this blog post. I’d guess most of Joe’s readers are baseball fans. And a lot of his posts- here and at the Athletic site generate tons of responses and often a lot of good discussion. This one- talking about the future of baseball- meh, not so much.
There is a real problem with the future of baseball. I’m one of the old guys who grew up on baseball. Playing as a kid. When I was a kid I lived in 2 houses in the suburbs. At both locations there were empty lots and fields nearby where most every day we would go out and play ‘500’ and other baseball related activities. Didn’t have enough players to play much of a game. Maybe 7-8 of us total. But we had gloves, bats, and balls and engaged in baseball activities. At both of those locations, those empty lots are long, long gone- housing subdivisions. Also played whiffle ball in the back yard. Does anyone play whiffle ball any more? Getting the room to play baseball isn’t as easy today. You need your parents to take you to somewhere. A basketball hoop can be set up in a driveway.
If MLB plays this year- which I’m beginning to doubt- a lot of it will be without fans attending. Maybe a sneak peek at the future of baseball? When games are only televised. Why spend hundreds of millions on big stadiums? Just create a small field for the players and set up for tv cameras. Have a virtual interacting of fans online. Creating virtual crowd noise. Maybe creating a way to simulate aromas- hot dogs, beer, etc thru our devices. And the evolution can continue - at some point programmable robots can become the players. A completely virtual sport. Woo-hoo!
Sigh!
Yes, baseball has problems, but I think that the biggest problem baseball has is that it has denied its own heritage.
Of all the major American sports baseball was unique in that success depended on sustained excellence over the course of 5 months. Other sports played a regular season to eliminate only 40-60% of the teams before starting the "real season" - the playoffs. Not baseball - to win the Championship you had to demonstrate you were THE best over the course of a season not just one of the best. There was a real sense of accomplishment in winning the pennant and then the World Series. You couldn't be an 85 win team that got hot for 4 weeks.
1968 is considered a watershed year for American society, but it was also a watershed year for Baseball. That was the year it was decided that you didn't have to be the best, just "sort of" the best to compete for the championship. That was the thin edge of the wedge that led to 4 team divisions and wild card teams in the playoffs.
So Baseball is no longer unique - it is, in fact, a cheap copy of the other major sports, so why not prefer the originals? Baseball needs to stop trying to be the NFL or NBA. It needs to go back to being itself.
For those who think that getting more teams into the postseason increased interest I can only go by personal experience. I grew up in Detroit in the 50's - we were ALWAYS looking up at the Yankees. But there was a nobility in the yearly struggle. Some years, such as 1961 were satisfying when we just got close to the Yankees. I believe that there is no nobility in "sneaking in" to the playoffs as a good second place team.
The domestic champion in European soccer leagues is the team that finishes top of the standings at the end of the year. No playoffs, no Wild Cards - win the league or don't. The EPL, LA Liga and the Bundesliga don't seem to be hurting.
This is somewhat similar to what happened to Indiana high school basketball about 20 years ago. The tournament to win the state championship at the end of the year was every schools in one tournament- not segregated by school size. The tournament was immensely popular. Attendance at games was high. Tv ratings were good. The small school’s year could be made by upsetting the big school down the road in the sectionals or regionals. Then they went to a class based set of tournaments. Interest dropped fast. Per game attendance plummeted, tv ratings went down. The tournament no longer has the cachet it once had.
I agree wholeheartedly with the article, Joe.
I'm curious when the 60 Greatest Moments series will continue. I can certainly empathize with what a drain current events can be, but I truly miss those daily morning articles from you.
I answered my own question. I missed the editorial comment at the end of Moment #31 about resuming the week of June 8th. I usually dive right past that intro paragraph into the latest essay.
Great post. I've always liked Dayton Moore, even if he's not the most Sabermetrically inclined. But seeing what they've done is just awesome, and should be followed by all teams. Never understood why minor leaguers were treated so crappy - spend a few million more on salary and facilities, and if you develop one extra big leaguer it's worth it (and that's not getting into the moral argument of treating people fairly).
But seeing this labor stuff play out, and how short sighted the owners are, reminds me so much of the last season of Brockmire. It was meant to be a parody but was so close to the truth
Well said, sir.
Too many divisional games. As a Tigers fan, I hate hate hate that they play nearly half the season against the Twins, Royals, White Sox and Indians. This many games against those lousy teams breeds enmity, and so few games against other teams causes unfamiliarity.
The reason you knew so many African American players from the 70s and 80s and so on is because you actually saw them play, and they played enough games against your team to prove that they were actually good. Right now, the Tigers play Anaheim 6 times a year. Usually, 2 of those games are 10pm west coast starts, and for some reason the Tigers will throw in a weekday matinee game just to reduce the chance I get to see MIke Trout play.
They used to have what they called the "balanced schedule." Each team in each league played each other the same number of times (more or less). People (I'm not sure who. Broadcasters? Managers? Fans?) complained that there were not enough division games. You could get to the end of the season and not have many or any division games in September, which was viewed as a problem if you were in a dogfight for the division. Hence, along about the time they introduced interleague play they went to the unbalanced schedule. A lot more games against division opponents, a lot less against other teams.
I don't have a strong opinion on which is better. I guess it depends on the year. If the Royals are chasing the Indians for the division, I sure want to play the Indians at the end of the season if I am the Royals. If I'm the Indians, maybe I'd prefer not to play the Royals so it is harder for the Royals to catch us.
As an A's season ticket holder to I get tired of the Mariners and Rangers? Yes. I'd sure love more games against the Yankees and Red Sox, but so would every team in the league. Do I lament that we only see Tampa Bay or Detroit one time a year? Not really.
I don't think balanced schedule means what you think it means. When I started watching baseball, almost 50 years ago, teams played 18 games per year against their own division teams and 12 each against the other division in their league. The schedule was called balanced because everyone in the division played each opponent the same number of times and there were no advantages (within the division) based on schedule.
That being said, there are still more division games per team now (@25) and that is too many, especially with four divisions in the league plus interleague games. There is also the fact that due to outdated "natural rival" interleague, there can be (and have been) divisions decided by strength of schedule of opponents, which is wrong. I truly believe everyone within a division must play identical schedules to decide that division.
So, despite not agreeing about the definition of balanced, I do agree that there should be a little less division games, and definitely an identical schedule within the division.
I agree. As a Mets fan, I have no special interest in endless games against the Phils and Nats.
Hell, I don't need the Mets to play them to hate them, right?
Also, I'm fine with inter-league, but having to play the Yanks EVERY year is boring. They played the Angels back in 2017 and it was GREAT! Mike Trout put on a show at CitiField and even though the Mets were annihilated, it was great.
I'd love a balanced schedule. And, hell, since we have inter-league play and the separate leagues don't mean anything anymore, make it really balanced, at least to a degree.
So I have some agreements: baseball IS a sport with an aging fan base. It's also a sport where, fretfully, African-Americans are less a part of the game. However, I have some nitpicks with this argument:
1. Football is America's 'favorite' sport. But does every football fan love college football? The NFL? High school football? How many football fans are passionate about the NFL, college ball, high school football AND the AFL and potential minor leagues? I'd bet most football fans are BIG fans of one of those, with maybe a secondary love.
2. Basketball is a rising sport. How many basketball fans are NBA fans? College football fans? How many love high school football, or the D-League? How many are fans of all of them combined? Again, I hear plenty of "I'm not a fan of how (insert the NBA, college ball, or both) is played" from basketball fans.
Overall, I am not concerned about less interest in every aspect of baseball. I AM concerned with fans not being interested in Major League Baseball. I think MLB has some big structural problems with payroll (small market teams, like my Indians, feel trapped and screwed) and its earned a stigma which it must shake.
I have a secondary issue with the 'lack of African-Americans' in the game. For decades the biggest star in baseball was...Derek Jeter. A biracial athlete. The biggest star(s) in Detroit? David Ortiz & Manny Ramirez. Yes, they're both from Latin America, but they are also unquestionably black. On my Indians we have Francisco Lindor. There is no lack of diversity on the baseball field.
In fact, I would argue that baseball is the closest to resembling the United States, demographically, of all the major sports. Is it perfect? Of course not, but they're far closer than the NBA, NFL, or NHL. Overall, I do not find the argument that baseball's diversity, or lack thereof, is its biggest issue.
I think MLB should try to bring its best product to more audiences across the US. I would propose the interleague rivalries play in minor league stadiums. The Indians should play the Reds in Columbus, Akron, Dayton, Lexington, and Indianapolis. The New York Mets and Yankees should face off in Staten Island, Albany, Rochester, etc. Make the MLB games more accessible to a wider audience. Just one idea that would be cool.
This is one issue where the use of "African Americans" is appropriate. Baseball's problem is not necessarily diversity, but the ability to reach and be available to poorer Americans. Of the stars you cherry picked above, only Derek Jeter was born in the US, and he was middle class at worst.
The problem with baseball and African Americans is twofold. The first is baseball is an expensive sport to play in today's times. This means less lower middle class and below participants, and this affects African Americans disproportionately.
The youth leagues have a lot of travel and expense. This make the best leagues only available to middle class and up. I played until I was 22, and in today's environment would have played a little as a youth in second rate leagues. Maybe in high school if I was lucky enough to be in a school with a program. (My high school did not have one, but there were plenty of affordable options when I was young) I would not have had the chance to play after high school.
The second is the fact that even if you are able to play, and you are a multi sport athlete, why would anyone play baseball? There is less a portion of the revenue devoted to players in baseball than any other sport if you make it. In the minor leagues, you are owned by your team and paid less than minimum wage for several years. The other sports get paid more, and more quickly. They take less time to get past the point where you make the league minimum and start making great money, and less of a percentage of draft picks make it to that point at all.
Next time you count stars, count African American stars. Born here. Compare it to the list Joe has up top. He pulls 30 off of the top of his head. Last year there only 68 out of 882 players on opening day rosters or injured or restricted lists, which means about 58 on active rosters. That is less than two per team on a the 25 man roster.
Lack of availability to play the sport to begin with, inability to compete financially with other leagues for homegrown star athletes when there is one who plays baseball.
There are plenty of people of color from other countries. That is because baseball can draft these guys at age 16, the peanuts they make in the minor leagues might be an upgrade for the poor in another country, and there is not competition from other leagues.
None of that means the systemic problem of disenfranchising those who make less money in the the US from the time of their youth is not a major problem, both for the MLB getting future players, as well as future fans.
Totally agree about baseball resembling the US better than the other sports.
Another point is you're an athletic young teen growing up in this country and you want to pursue a professional sport career look at the options out there....
NFL - lots of availibility, but hugely competetive and a very short career. No minor league to help you develop.
NBA - small rosters, but no minor league to help you develop, though they are trying to get that going.
MLS- I don't know much about this league, but I'm assuming it pays less, though you could make much more in other countries?
MLB - Pays well, lots of spots, minor league to help you develop.
Maybe the problem is that kids don't find it exciting? It doesn't seem like MLB as a whole is something people follow anymore, besides their own team. Why that is, I don't know.
Uhhhhh! No minor leagues for NFL and NBA? Guess you forgot about college sports. Lot of teaching and a much better lifestyle overall than endless road games on a bus.
Ortiz and Ramirez are the biggest stars in Detroit? News to me!
Your point about overall diversity vs. representation by African-Americans specifically is a good one. Don't have the stats but I would guess the % of players in the MLB who are Asian also exceeds other leagues.
This is also a good argument as to why killing minor league teams is a terrible idea. Yeah, maybe it’s not set up in the most efficient way, and yeah, there’s been lots of turnover in minor league teams over the years, but if you are trying to grow the game - hell, trying to grow the business - don’t you want MORE baseball? Not less?