Showing posts with label rob manfred. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rob manfred. Show all posts

Thursday, April 2, 2015

4 comments Jerry Green Thinks Bud Selig Took a Piss on the Common Man with All These Newfangled Changes to Baseball

Jerry Green's default mechanism is to long for the good old days. Everything that happened in sports was better 30-40 (even 60) years ago. Sports are ruined today and the common man has been cut out of baseball completely. Now you may ask, "But Ben, who is this 'common man' that Jerry Green is referring to?" I do not know the answer to that question, but when I find the common man, I expect him to be very upset and ravenous to kick Bud Selig's ass. Because after all, with all of these changes to baseball, Selig left the common man behind. The common man is in a cave, ruing the day that Bud Selig became commissioner and dared to try and think of new ideas, ideas that Babe Ruth and Hank Greenberg would think were absolutely ridiculous, to "improve" baseball. Fortunately, Jerry Green is around to stand up for the common man and remember the good old days when everything was better in baseball. Back when there was racism throughout the game and those silly Mexican players stayed in the country where they belong.

A purist's lament:

Don't you love how sportwriters who long for the old days call themselves "purists"? I'm not sure Jerry Green is understanding that when he refers to the era of Babe Ruth and Walter Johnson as "pure" he also means "there weren't any black players allowed to play the sport and they had their own separate league so this was better." There is definitely a slightly racist tint to this appeal for "purity." When a sportswriter is using the same language that racist organizations use to advocate for the demeaning treatment of those aren't like them, then I would probably reconsider my language if I were a sportswriter. Maybe it's just me. It's racist organizations and baseball writers who long for "purity."

Baseball, once, was the Common Man's game.

Yes, baseball was once a lot of things. It no longer is a lot of things and this isn't a bad thing. Progress doesn't have to be scary.

It was simple: the major-league teams played through the season in what were legitimate pennant races. The eight or 10 teams in the two leagues played games starting in April and finishing in October.

So contract 10 to 14 teams and hold more "legitimate" pennant races? That's the key to making baseball better apparently. Engage fewer fans for a shorter period of time by limiting the number of cities that have baseball teams and making sure fewer teams are in contention. I can't see how this wouldn't work. Brilliant. The common man would love this.

At the end of the schedule, after 154 or 162 games, the team in first place in the American League played the team in first place in the National League. The postseason was confined to an event noted as the World Series. The first team to win four games in the best-of-seven games became what was known widely, as the World Champions.

Things have changed. I don't understand the opposition to change. There should be a separate baseball internet for people who long for the days of purity. That way it helps to keep their internet pure from scary ideas that cause change in sports and those impure fans of sports don't end up reading the disgruntled rantings of those who are afraid of anything new.

This was how Babe Ruth and Hank Greenberg played baseball in a better era.

It still is gripping. The pennant races are still close and the one game wild-card playoff, though contrived and stupid, does provide a sense of theater the sport desperately needs. I wouldn't consider the era in which Ruth and Greenberg played as a better era simply because it was an older era and I hope I never get to the point when I lament the game was better when Trout and Cabrera were hitting the ball all over the field.

Whitey Ford pitching curveballs vs. Duke Snider. Jackie Robinson called safe on a steal of home plate to the wailing of Yogi Berra. Willie Mays running into deep center field to catch Vic Wertz monstrous shot over his shoulder at the Polo Grounds. Ruth calling his shot and then hitting a home run at Wrigley Field. Grover Cleveland Alexander trudging from the bullpen hung-over to strike out Tony Lazzeri with the bases loaded.

Here's the deal though, Jerry. These days are NEVER coming back. Even if Rob Manfred decided that he wanted to only have an American League and National League with no divisions, and the two teams with the best record in each league meet, Whitey Ford will never be throwing curveballs to Duke Snider. Ruth won't ever call his shot again. Willie Mays won't catch a Vic Wertz shot over his shoulder for a second time. Those days are gone. Clayton Kershaw will pitch to David Ortiz. Mike Trout will catch a fly ball off the bat of Bryce Harper. It won't be the same because the past is the past. So if your beef is with the set up of MLB with the three divisions and two wild cards, then that's fine, but it seems your beef is that all of the old players who dead now aren't playing. So well, that's just something you are going to have to get over. They aren't coming back, so enjoy the players now in the lesser era or move on with your life and don't watch baseball anymore.

The Common Man could relate to the ballgames. We all had played baseball. We carried our fantasies. Until the rude awakening, the day that we discovered that we couldn't play.

But we still loved our baseball.

I don't think it's the wild card and expansion that has caused the common man to lose interest in baseball. I think it's a product of a different society and times have changed to where fans like a faster paced game. Society moves on, even if you aren't ready for it to.

Ticket prices were affordable.

Bud Selig isn't the sole cause of ticket prices becoming unaffordable. Inflation, player salaries and the realization that teams can make a shitload of money by raising ticket prices and maximizing profits caused ticket prices to become less affordable. Even so, a ticket to a minor league game isn't overly expensive and it's a great night out with the family or friends. There are options to watch baseball at an affordable price level. Again, it feels like Jerry Green is lamenting a time gone by, not specific things Bud Selig has done.

When I was a kid, a Common Man could cough up 55 cents to sit in the bleachers, a buck 10 for general admission along the first or third base line. And if you brought a couple of peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches in a brown bag, you could watch Ted Williams playing against Joe DiMaggio in a doubleheader.

Good for you. Bud Selig didn't kill Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams. Bud Selig didn't set ticket prices for games, and quite frankly, rightly began to take steps to make the game faster in an era of specialized pitching that has resulted in more pitching changes that slowed the game down.

But best for the purist, the pennant races were real.

They still are real. Just because the pennant races aren't like the pennant races in 1938 doesn't mean the 2015 races aren't real. Remember this night? It sort of felt real, didn't it?

If Major League Baseball still had genuine pennant races, the 2014 standings through the top five finishers — the old-fashioned first division — would have been exactly like this:

American League

TeamWinsLossesPct.GB
Los Angeles9864.605
Baltimore9666.593 2
Detroit9072.556 8
Kansas City8973.549 9
Oakland8874.54310

National League

TeamWinsLossesPct.GB
Washington9666.593
Los Angeles9468.580 2
St. Louis9072.556 6
San Francisco8874.543 8
Pittsburgh8874.548 8

This would fix everything if there was an Angels-Nationals World Series. Snider versus Ford! Willie Mays catching fly balls and Babe Ruth calling his shot. All of these things would happen again.

Now we're stuck with the debris that Bud Selig left behind.

"The debris" meaning that more baseball fans are engaged in the sport for a longer period of time. What in the hell could Bud Selig have been thinking to try and engage more fans of more teams in the sport for a longer period of time? If only he had set up two leagues and just let the team with the best record in each league play each other in the World Series, the time of games would decrease, tickets prices would plummet, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches would become the national currency for the national pastime again, and fans would come come flocking back to the sport purely for the sake of nostalgia they never actually experienced. It would all happen!

The true pennant races and the genuine standings might have confused the figure manipulators and similar Sabremetric creatures.

Bud Selig is a famed Sabermetrician. And also, calling the pennant races "true" and the standings "genuine" doesn't make it so. I think a real pennant race can involve the wild card as well, and recent history has shown me to be correct.

The traditional World Series — Nationals vs. Angels — might have happened. Mike Trout vs. Bryce Harper was a purist's pipe dream.

Oh, so the World Series involving the team with speed that didn't hit home runs isn't a purist's dream? And here I thought it would be.

Ruth, Ty Cobb, Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson, Bob Feller, Williams, DiMaggio, Stan Musial, Satchel Paige, Jackie Robinson, Tris Speaker, Mickey Cochrane, Charlie Gehringer, Goose Goslin — these are names that reek with tradition.

And nothing says "tradition" like the World Series meeting between a 23 year old and 22 year old who haven't ever appeared in a World Series before, who happen to play on two teams that didn't exist in their current form prior to 2005. THAT is tradition.

But MLB trashed tradition during the power-lusting reign of a commissioner.

Yes, he trashed tradition by moving the Expos to Washington and calling them the "Nationals" and by changing the name of the Angels to the "Anaheim Angels" and then the "Los Angeles Angels," except Jerry apparently longs for the tradition that these teams represent. A tradition that wasn't there prior to Bud Selig becoming the commissioner.

One year, early in his administration, Selig ordered the cancellation of the World Series during a bitter labor dispute with the players union. The next spring he decided the game must go on — with replacement players. Bud wanted to serve up sandlot baseball at big-league prices.

Right, he did want to do this. What has resulted from this strike that happened 20 fucking years ago (though to Jerry, that's like yesterday)? Baseball has had labor peace since that time. Baseball is the only major sport to have labor peace over the last 20 years.

That spring 20 years ago was Sparky Anderson's finest moment in his Hall of Fame career as manager with Cincinnati and Detroit. He refused manage the fake major leaguers in a false season.

Sparky maintained the dignity that Selig lacked.

Except Anderson never really had to actually make this call that he was prepared to make because the union and MLB came to a deal.

Bud went out last month following the weakest World Series in the history of the sport.

He staged a World Series pitting two fourth-place teams. There was Fox TV drooling about the Royals playing the Giants. The Giants' best from April through September, in a 162-game season, had been to tie for fourth in the National League with the Pirates.

The 2014 World Series was the third-lowest rated World Series of all-time. The 2013 World Series, which took place between two teams that had the best record in their respective leagues, is the fifth-lowest rated World Series of all-time. So I think it's just that the World Series has lower ratings due to there being other options on television more than fans don't watch because they want to see teams with the best record in their league play.

He went out boasting and preening that Major League Baseball is thriving. He spoke about the prosperity created during his tenure, more than ever in his sport. He proclaimed that the club owners and the players became richer and richer.

MLB teams are setting attendance records under Bud Selig, so obviously fans are attending the games. The stadiums could be bigger than they used to be, but when claiming the idea that the common man is being left out, the fact a lot of common men are choosing to attend baseball games seems to disprove this idea.

Does the Common Man — the shot-and-beer guy, or the average dude on the assembly line — give a hoot about Mike Ilitch's prosperity?

Don't think so!

No one gives a crap about Ilitch's prosperity, but this goes for every sport that has an extremely wealthy owner. I don't care about my favorite NFL team's owner and whether he makes a ton of money, yet this doesn't mean I'm being shut out from attending NFL games. "The average dude on the assembly line" doesn't give a shit if the owner of any of his favorite teams makes money, no matter the sport, and whether that owner is filthy rich or just really, really rich is irrelevant to this fictional dude (should I call him the "replacement dude" just to irritate Jerry Green's anti-Sabermetric tendencies?). Baseball isn't an outlier regarding this attitude of "the average dude on the assembly line."

Selig went out claiming MLB had created the most powerful drug enforcement policy in professional sports. He says, bursting with ego, that this policy is part of his legacy.

But this is true. MLB has a pretty powerful drug enforcement policy.

The truth is that Selig was tardy leading MLB into drug enforcement. The great home-run explosions — Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa — went on before Baseball ignored steroids and performance enhancing drugs. Baseball reveled in the attacks on Ruth and Henry Aaron and Roger Maris by Bonds, McGwire and Sosa.

This is also true. It's very hard to force through a powerful drug enforcement policy when there isn't a big problem that needs to be addressed. Often, something has to break before it gets fixed. That is what happened in baseball. The player's union wasn't going to agree that a powerful drug enforcement policy was necessary if they didn't see a real reason to have this powerful policy. The Steroid Era allowed both owners and the player's union to see the issue present and the necessity for a powerful drug enforcement policy. So yes, the Steroid Era is on Bud Selig, but without that era it would have been hard for the player's union to see the need for stricter testing. Such is how life works. Things have to get worse before they get better.

We purists, the cadre of remaining traditionalists, shuddered at the obliteration of Ruth's statistics, of Aaron's and Maris' records.

And this is on Bud Selig, but it's not fair to complain he was responsible for the Steroid Era and then take away credit for creating a powerful drug enforcement policy. It's hard to push through change when there isn't a problem that seems to need solving.

Bud went out with self-praise for the sweeping drug suspensions of 13 abusers two years ago, in a dragnet operation. It was based on the testimony from convicted Biogenesis operator Anthony Bosch.

In essence, Bud went out after dealing with a drug dealer.

Now this is very true, but Jerry Green is again choosing to complain about everything Bud Selig did simply because he longs for days that will never come again. Jerry Green complains that Bud Selig didn't clean up baseball in time for records to be broken by PED users and then criticizes Selig for being aggressive in trying to prevent PED users from breaking more long-held baseball records. Jerry wants to blame Selig for not being tough enough on PED users, but then complains Selig was too tough on PED users.

It can't always work both ways. Jerry Green wants MLB to clean up baseball, but not to be too aggressive in cleaning up baseball. It's a travesty that PED users are breaking baseball records, but he doesn't want MLB to be too aggressive in making sure this doesn't happen again. I think Selig went a bit overboard to nail A-Rod, but I also don't blame Selig for being tardy to put in place a strict drug enforcement policy.

He did not leave Major League Baseball. He opted to linger. MLB retained him as commissioner emeritus at a peon's wage of $6 million per year. He gets a drop in salary.

But Bud is still there, after all, hanging around. Imagine, 6 million bucks to point out to Rob Manfred, the replacement, err, new commissioner where home plate is.

Yep, I'm not a huge fan of Selig being allowed to earn all this money for not really doing a whole lot. Still, Selig didn't ruin baseball by introducing the wild card, he simply tried to open up the pennant races for more teams to get fans more engaged. I shudder to think what would happen if fewer teams were involved with pennant races during the month of August and September.

For sure, the Common Man ought to relate to that.

I still don't know who the common man is and I refuse to capitalize it. Jerry Green is very lost if he thinks the way back to baseball prosperity is to have two leagues with the best teams in each league meeting in the World Series. He longs for lower ticket prices, dead players to suddenly come back alive and play again, and for owners to not make a lot of money on the backs of fans. Changing how the playoffs structured won't fix this, so basically Jerry's problem isn't with Bud Selig, but with the passage of time. Perhaps he should take up his beefs with a clock or calendar. 

Monday, December 22, 2014

3 comments Gregg Doyel Thinks Pete Rose Deserves a Second Chance Simply Because He Deserves One

I am one of those people (I guess there are others) who isn't against Pete Rose being reinstated by Major League Baseball. I've just never heard a good argument as to why MLB should reinstate him. Perhaps I am biased by the fact that I consider gambling on sports as a coach/player to be worse than taking PED's. I consider it to be a great offense to sports to either bet on (and especially against) your team. Using PED's is bad, and it does cheat the opposition, I understand that. Gambling is just...different to me. So Gregg Doyel thinks Rob Manfred should reinstate Pete Rose because he thinks Rose has done his time. I don't find his argument persuasive for reinstatement. I think Pete Rose should be allowed in the Hall of Fame, much in the same way I lean towards allowing PED users in the Hall of Fame. The baseball Hall of Fame is a separate entity from MLB and I think Pete Rose belongs in the Hall as one of the greatest baseball players of all-time.

Maybe I'm being harsh. Rose knew the ramifications of his decision and he gambled anyway. The punishment fits the crime. I recognize the same Big Red Machine teammates that are horrified at the thought of PED users being in the Hall of Fame want Rose reinstated, which makes chuckle. On a side note, I miss Joe Morgan. I miss covering his weekly ESPN chats (a tear falls) here. I'm fine with Rose in the Hall of Fame, but he admitted to gambling (once he had a chance to make a profit off his admission, which probably irritates me more than it does most rational human beings) and a lifetime ban is the punishment for this admission.

It's time for baseball to forgive Pete Rose.

Absolutely forgive him. Don't lift the ban just because it's been a long time since he was banned. A lot of time having gone by since his ban doesn't mean Rose should be forgiven.

Simple as that, but this isn't a tweet and I have a lot more than 140 characters to work with, so I can keep going. Don't see why it's necessary, because the first sentence says it all.

Except it doesn't say it all, because it doesn't include the reason why Rose should be reinstated. Why Rose should be reinstated seems pretty important when making the statement that "it's time for baseball to forgive Pete Rose." I can make a statement like, "Anyone convicted of marijuana possession at any point in their life should be given $10,000 in cash, tax free," but this statement doesn't explain WHY I believe this. It's kind of important to know why.

It's time for baseball to forgive Pete Rose.

Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it more true.

The only reason for the game to hang onto its grudge -- and make no mistake, this has moved beyond justice and into grudge territory -- is cruelty.

Incorrect. The only reason for the game to continue to enforce the punishment, it's not a grudge, is because Rose knew what he was doing is against the rules and did it anyway. They are enforcing a punishment, not hanging onto a grudge. A grudge would be if baseball had no reason to suspend Pete Rose for life and still wouldn't reinstate him, but MLB does have a reason for doing this.

Baseball doesn't like Pete Rose. Baseball wants Pete Rose to suffer.

I fail to see how "Baseball wants Pete Rose to suffer, so they enforce the rules regarding betting on baseball" is a persuasive argument. Why should baseball reinstate Rose? Doyel gives no other reason outside of accusing Bud Selig of disliking Rose and saying it's been 25 years since Rose was banned from baseball. I find neither argument persuasive.

Bud Selig doesn't like Pete Rose. Bud Selig wants Pete Rose to suffer. And so Bud Selig won't forgive Pete Rose.

I don't like Pete Rose. I think he's a rat fink who only looks out for himself and only will accept responsibility for his actions when there is a financial gain for him in doing so. I think Rose hangs around the periphery of baseball trying to gain sympathy as if he were in some way wronged, all while rolling in the money by exploiting his position as being banned from baseball. He's within his rights to do this, but it doesn't mean I have to like him. I think he should be in the Hall of Fame and I haven't heard a good reason he should be reinstated, but I don't hold this position because I don't like him. It's because most of the reasons I have read for reinstating Rose suck. The reasons given for Rose's reinstatement are usually similar to the reasons Doyel is giving here.

That's what was happening in recent years. Selig didn't like the way Rose hijacked the Hall of Fame induction ceremony every year in Cooperstown by setting up an autograph table not far away. He didn't like the way Rose turned his admission of guilt -- "I'm sorry I bet on baseball" -- into the phrase he signed on the baseballs he was selling at Cooperstown. Pete Rose confused contrition with capitalism, and it looked horrible, and as the person overseeing the integrity of baseball Bud Selig didn't like it. Hell, I didn't like it either. Who would?

So of course Gregg Doyel is making the assumption that because Bud Selig allegedly doesn't like Pete Rose for very valid reasons, Selig is refusing to reinstate Rose not because of a lifetime ban from 25 years ago for admitting to violating one of the most important rules of sport, but because Selig just doesn't like Rose. Doyel is about to do a comparison to the justice system, but this is like saying a parole board won't grant a prisoner parole based on the fact they don't like him, not based on the fact he was in jail for murder. The very reason that prisoner is in jail is enough of a reason for denying bail.

I'm not accusing what Rose did as being the same thing as murder, simply explaining the violation of baseball rules on gambling is enough reason to not reinstate Pete Rose. There's no consistent effort by Selig to keep Rose out of the game, which would potentially be the act of a person holding a grudge, because there doesn't have to be a consistent effort. The lifetime ban is enough to keep Rose from being reinstated.

But he's leaving, and in January when baseball has a new commissioner, it will be Rob Manfred's call.

I almost want MLB to reinstate Rose. That way the baseball Hall of Fame has to be the bad guys. I would love for Hall of Fame members to come out in support of Pete Rose being eligible for the Hall of Fame because he has been reinstated. That way I could show the hypocrisy of these Hall of Fame members allowing Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame, but not PED users. It would be a gold mine of posts for me.

On the surface that would suggest Manfred and Selig see eye-to-eye on most issues.

And they probably do. But on all issues? Is it logical to assume Rob Manfred, a labor lawyer out of the Ivy League, is in intellectual lockstep with Bud Selig -- a car-lot owner from the University of Wisconsin -- on every single issue? Of course not. That's not logical.

BREAKING NEWS FROM GREGG DOYEL: Two individual human beings will never agree on every single issue presented to them.

That's delusional. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell was Paul Tagliabue's right-hand man; does anyone think Goodell is another Tagliabue? Same goes for David Stern when he replaced Larry O'Brien as NBA commissioner.

Gregg, I don't know if anyone but you indicated that Manfred and Selig might see eye-to-eye on every issue. Logical people wouldn't think this to be true.

He became a partner in a global law firm based in Philadelphia, where his work in labor law attracted the attention of baseball. He became the owners' outside lawyer, then joined Selig's staff in 1998.

Nearly a decade after Rose was banned from the game.

I like how Doyel is grasping on desperately to this idea of time. Time is why Rose should be reinstated. Time is why Manfred doesn't have the perspective that Selig had. It's as if Manfred will be like, "I didn't personally ban Pete Rose, so I will ignore the rules that state gambling on baseball will earn that person a lifetime ban."

Gregg Doyel is hiding some facts here when discussing Manfred. Rob Manfred went to work for MLB in 1987, before Rose was banned. He was part of the owners' team during collective bargaining during the 1994-1995 season. He joined full-time as part of the owners' team in 1998. 16 years after beginning to work for the owners full-time is Manfred really still an outsider? If Selig isn't an outsider and he was the owner of an MLB team, doesn't that mean the guy who has worked for MLB prior to Pete Rose being banned is not an outsider either? He's been on the owners' side from the time Selig owned the Brewers and been with Selig for the past 16 years.

My point? Selig had something Manfred does not: a personal history with Rose. In 1989 when commissioner Bart Giamatti banned Rose, Selig owned the Milwaukee Brewers. He was part of the machine. In 1992 when Rose applied for reinstatement to Giamatti's replacement, Fay Vincent didn't act on it; Selig was still part of the machine. And in 1999 when Rose applied for reinstatement to Vincent's replacement, Bud Selig ignored it too.

I like how it is Bud Selig that has the grudge, even though he wasn't the commissioner who banned Pete Rose and isn't the commissioner that initially ignored his attempt at reinstatement.

Selig was there from the beginning with Rose, is my point. He was entrenched. Rose wants reinstatement? Selig shrugs.

I'm not saying Manfred wouldn't consider it, but Rob Manfred is entrenched too. He's been a part of the owners' team since the 1994-1995 season and has worked with MLB since 1987. He has been there through Rose's banishment and every single one of his appeals. He's not quite the outsider that Gregg Doyel wants to paint him as being.

Manfred will probably be his own man, just like Adam Silver is his own man as the NBA commissioner, but he's pretty entrenched with the owners and MLB. As far as Bud Selig being entrenched and holding a grudge against Rose, I don't think Rose has given Selig a reason to reinstate him.

Some day soon Rose will ask Manfred to consider the same. Just a matter of time, because time is running out on Pete Rose. He's 73 years old, 

The fact Pete Rose is getting older is not a reason to reinstate him. It was a lifetime ban, not a ban until the very point Pete Rose is young enough to remember he got reinstated but old enough to where he can't participate in any baseball events due to his health.

how much time do any of us have, much less any of us in our 70s who have lived with the stress and disappointment that Rose has dealt with for the past 25 years?

Gregg Doyel leaves out the fact that Pete Rose has caused the stress and disappointment that he has had to deal with over the past 25 years. Such small details I know, but Rose brought this all on himself. Not to mention, he's making money off his name and who he is, and he doesn't seem to be struggling or headed for a retirement home in the next few months. I would feel bad for the "stress" Rose has caused for himself, but all of his wounds are self-inflicted.

Enough's enough, know what I mean?

I know what that means, but I don't know what you mean in this situation. A lifetime ban is a lifetime ban, you know what I mean?

Baseball wouldn't be sending a message of weakness to anyone considering betting on the game, the cardinal sin Rose broke -- and it is a huge sin, and he did break it. I minimize neither of those.

Doyel isn't minimizing it, but time and suffering...what about time and suffering. Plus, grudges!

Betting on baseball is horrible, something all players are reminded of with a sign in every clubhouse spelling out the punishment: a lifetime ban.

And there we go. It's in every clubhouse and the players know the penalty. Allow Pete Rose to be eligible for the Hall of Fame, but I don't see a reason to reinstate him. I'm open to it if a good enough case can be made, but Rose knew the rules and his only commitments to being apologetic are when he make a profit off doing so. There's no grudge involved, but that Rose wants to make money off his lifetime ban certainly isn't helping his case. Rose comes off as an opportunist more than he comes off as remorseful. Rose has cried publicly about being banned from baseball, so maybe he is contrite. Maybe it's an act for those who want to believe him.

If anything, it would get this topic back into the forefront of conversation around the game, and the conversation would start like this:

They banned the all-time hit king for 25 years. Embarrassed him. Humiliated him. If they can do that to Pete Rose, what would they do to me?

That conversation has started and goes like this: "They banned the all-time hit king for life. Imagine what they would do to me."

I think it's hilarious that Gregg Doyel thinks giving Rose a 25 year ban, instead of a lifetime ban, would serve as a greater deterrent to future players who want to gamble on baseball. The fact MLB eventually let Rose back in would start a conversation about that as well. Maybe if a player just admits to gambling on baseball immediately and is contrite, he won't get a 25 year banishment.

Twenty-five years isn't life, but a life sentence doesn't always have to be a life sentence. It's not in our court system, where a life system often leads to parole. How come? Because our court system feels like there are times when the prisoner has done his time, and whatever he did to earn that lifetime sentence, he's paid his price.

This isn't a court system. Pete Rose had paid his price. He's still paying his price. It doesn't have to be a life sentence, but what reasoning has Pete Rose given MLB to reinstate him? Other than hanging around baseball and trying to remind everyone how much he loves and the game and oh by the way do you want an autographed baseball for $100? Rose will write he bet on baseball on the ball for $50 more dollars.

Where's the forgiveness for Pete Rose? Where's his second chance?

Sometimes there is no forgiveness. Sometimes there is no second chance. This is something that gets lost in society today. There may not be a second chance given. I think a lot of people run on the assumption if they screw up, they will get forgiveness or a second chance, and that doesn't always happen. Sometimes there is only one chance to not screw up and sometimes once you screw up there is no second chance to save face and get back to where you were prior to screwing up.

Oh, right. It's in the hands of Rob Manfred. And I like it there. Because Rob Manfred is no Bud Selig.

He may not be Bud Selig. We will all find out. Manfred isn't the outsider that Gregg Doyel seems to think he is. Plus, if Rose is reinstated it will start a whole new set of columns where the old guard of sportswriters will defend gambling on baseball as so much better than using PED's in an effort to get Rose in the Hall of Fame, but still keep PED users out. Those are some articles I would like to cover here.

Sunday, November 16, 2014

2 comments Baseball Is Still Still Dying a Death So Hard and the Future is Bleak; Except This Isn't True

As I wrote a few weeks ago, it's almost a cliche to say that baseball is dying. I think it's becoming a running joke among baseball fans that dozens of "Baseball is dying" columns get written around the time of the World Series. This is due to the ratings that the World Series receives which aren't comparable to ratings that the World Series has gotten in the past. As I have written many times before, there is an easy explanation. No top-rated shows, outside of NFL games, receive the ratings that they used to receive 20-30 years ago. The top-rated show on television get lower ratings than the top-rated show from 20-30 years ago. There are more options available to consumers. It's a simple explanation. Baseball is becoming a regional sport and still does well regionally. Still, writers like Phil Sullivan can't seem to figure it out and want to churn out a lazy "Baseball and the World Series are dying" column. Hey, maybe there is just nothing else he knows to write about.

You can't judge a World Series by its ratings, but it's apparent many fans don't exactly consider the Royals-Giants matchup must-see TV.

The quality of the World Series can't be judged by the ratings that World Series receives. This is just like the quality of a television show can't be judged by the ratings that television show receives.

The annual storyline of the national pastime losing viewership during its premier event once again cropped up this week, despite a back-and-forth Series that was pushed to seven games Tuesday night with the Royals' 10-0 victory.

Yes, despite the fact viewers should be able to predict the future to know that the World Series would be a back-and-forth affair, every game of the World Series was only in the Top 20 of the Nielson ratings for the week that the game aired. There are network television shows that would kill to have "bleeding" ratings like the World Series receives. If only...

Is this just something baseball has to live with from now on, or are there things the sport can to do to recapture October from football?

Yes, this is just a fact of life now. Baseball has become an increasingly more regional sport and every World Series game will no longer be the #1 rated program on the night they air. The NFL is currently more popular. The sooner the baseball-loving media deals with this, the happier they are, and the sooner I won't read "baseball is dying" articles anymore. It will be a glorious day.

"There's a lot going on at this time of year," Giants general manager Brian Sabean said. 

Plus, baseball just isn't as popular to watch on television as it used to be. 

"Baseball is not the American sport. Football is, and especially pro football, which is followed by some family member in everybody's family. But that has evolved over time. It really has nothing to do with the World Series."

But no, Brian Sabean, it DOES have something to do with the World Series. That's the premise of this article and so that is the conclusion that must be reached, reality about whether the relative lack of interest is a baseball-specific issue or is a World Series-related issue be damned.

True, baseball no longer is "the American sport" and hasn't been for years. It's not likely to overtake football in popularity for the foreseeable future.

Copy and paste onto a piece of paper that can go on the computer of writers like Paul Sullivan, so the answer is right there when the question of "Why doesn't baseball have great ratings like it used to?" pops into their mind.

There are many theories to choose from for lackluster World Series ratings, though the late starting times and the long games are the reasons most cite.

Football games start late and are actually longer than most baseball games, so those are two logical, but probably not entirely accurate reasons for the decline in baseball's popularity. The fact baseball isn't perceived as a "fast" sport combined with the perceived amount of standing around done could also be part of the reason the sport has suffered a decline in popularity. It's nearly impossible to pinpoint one reason, but the fact the playoff games feel like they move at a slow pace probably doesn't help. Whatever tension the sport has feels broken by the pauses between pitches. Baseball isn't a sport to actively watch like football. Baseball can be actively watched, but viewers watch a baseball game in a different manner than they watch a football game.

This particular Series also is lacking in star power, outside of Fox reporter Erin Andrews.

This doesn't make sense. Last year's World Series did not lack star power and it didn't get ratings reminiscent of the 1980's World Series games. Not that Paul Sullivan would draw a conclusion that baseball is dying because one World Series didn't get great ratings or anything like that when he refers to "this particular Series" lacking star power.

Madison Bumgarner, the probable MVP if the Giants win, isn't as well-known as half the starting quarterbacks in the NFL.

I mean, okay, if that comparison is attempting to prove baseball's popularity compared to the NFL's popularity it feels like a fail to me. LeBron James is more well-known than half of the starting quarterbacks in the NFL. Does that mean the NBA is more popular than the NFL? David Ortiz was popular and well-known and his presence didn't catapult the 2013 World Series to 30+ million viewers.

The Royals' key players, their three late inning relievers, are more anonymous than many NFL backup quarterbacks.

Everybody is anonymous until they make a name for themselves. I don't know if the World Series would bring in fantastic ratings even if the Royals had Papelbon, Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman in the bullpen. Again, Sullivan is assuming it is the lack of star power that is pushing the 2014 World Series ratings to being below those ratings of World Series games 20-30 years ago. It's not entirely true. 

The numbers are frightening. Heading into Game 6, the Series was averaging 12.1 million viewers per game. Game 1 in Kansas City was the lowest-rated World Series opener of all time with an average of 12.2 million viewers, while Game 4 in San Francisco only drew an average of 10.7 million.

And yet, these numbers were still in the Top 20 of television shows in primetime during that week. World Series ratings aren't as high as they used to be, but they are really aren't terrible considering they are still among the Top 20 shows during a given week.

Sunday's Game 5 rose to a 12.6 million average, but still lost out to Sunday Night Football, where the Saints trounced the Packers.

Football is more popular than baseball. Stop pointing out how World Series ratings can't match Sunday Night Football ratings. The World Series games will not match the ratings of Sunday Night Football games. It's just how it is now and there's no reason to say, "Derrrrrrrrrr....why is it the World Series can't match football in ratings? Is the sport dying? What's going on?"

Football ratings > Baseball ratings. Accept it, move on, and make no further comparisons of baseball to football.

Is FX dying? All shows on FX can't match the ratings that World Series games receive. Does this mean FX shows aren't popular and the network should fold? What about HBO? They rely on paid subscribers, but their shows can't keep up with baseball's ratings. Is HBO dying?

According to Variety, Sunday Night Football's ratings beat Game 5 by a 39 percent margin, the biggest difference since World Series games began competing against the Sunday night games on NBC in 2010.

Welp, some World Series game has to have the largest difference in ratings as compared to Sunday Night Football. I guess Game 5 of the 2014 World Series is that game.

While this year's Series has been captivating to most avid baseball fans, the rest of the country seemingly is not enamored.

Because baseball is becoming more and more of a regional sport. That is why. Local ratings for baseball are pretty good and MLB teams are securing lucrative regional contracts as well. The sport is simply becoming less and less national.

You can believe it has crossed the minds of incoming commissioner Rob Manfred, who is taking over the ship at a critical juncture, and Tony Clark, executive director of the MLB Players Association.

Yes, I could believe the commissioner wants baseball ratings to be as high as possible. As commissioner, this does seem like it would be one of Rob Manfred's concerns. Even if ratings were great, one of Manfred's concerns would still be to make sure fans all around the United States continue to enjoy watching the World Series.

Baseball's gross revenues reached a record $8 billion last year, according to Forbes, so the sport isn't exactly dying.

But yet, articles like this wondering why the World Series is bleeding ratings and sounding a death knell for the sport of baseball still get written. For a sport that doesn't get great ratings nationally, revenue records are still being set. Gee, what could that mean? Somebody somewhere must be enjoying watching the sport of baseball.

But if the millennials are tuning the game out, why would the following generation suddenly start tuning in?

That's a great question. If World Series ratings are decreasing and there is less perceived interest in the World Series and baseball in general, why would baseball have record gross revenues?

Of course, closer games would have helped this World Series, but four of the first five games were decided by five or more runs. Game 6 was highly anticipated because of the possibility of a Giants' clincher, but once the Royals scored those seven second-inning runs you almost could hear America brushing its teeth and getting ready for bed.

Specifically because it is not 1985 and there are quite a few options other than the World Series on television on a Tuesday evening. So a World Series game that lacks tension won't be viewed by those who don't have a rooting interest in either the Giants or the Royals. It's just how it is in 2014. There are more than five options in television shows.

There should be a surge in viewers for Game 7, whose main competition will be the Bulls-Knicks season opener on ESPN.

Game 7's traditionally get really, really good ratings. That's because there is tension and the stakes are higher than in Games 1-5 where a loss by one team would not have resulted in the opposing team winning the World Series. Viewers of sports like tension.

Derrick Rose vs. Carmelo Anthony, or Tim Hudson vs. Jeremy Guthrie?

See, unfortunately Paul Sullivan is still missing the point. It's not Derrick Rose v. Carmelo Anthony, or Tim Hudson vs. Jeremy Guthrie. It's Tim Hudson vs. Jeremy Guthrie, or shows on the DVR, or shows on basic cable, or a movie on a movie pay channel, or a television show on a cable network, or Derrick Rose vs. Carmelo Anthony. It's not the NBA versus MLB head-to-head, but is MLB versus every other program that's on television, which could be 200 other programs that are being shown at the same time as the World Series.

You make the call.

Well, since baseball is dying there was no need to watch the World Series was there? By the way, the ratings for Game 7 of the 2014 World Series were pretty good. 23.5 million people watched Game 7.