No surprise here -- but how far down will it fall with the impending strike? A CBS / NY Times poll finds that only 14% of adults are "very interested" in baseball, 30% "somewhat interested" -- the other 56% were "not at all interested". Read Times story here (reg. req.)

In terms of the strike, it found that of the people who expressed in baseball, 40% side with the owners, 27% with the players, and 11% saying both or neither.

The purist in me says "who cares?" since MOST adults have never been serious fans. However, since the national TV package -- hugely weighted toward the postseason -- relies on the viewership of NON-FANS, that revenue stream is in real danger of shrinkage, in the wake of the lowest-rated World Series and All-Star Game ever (I think those are the statistical facts?).

Does anybody have the ratings for the 2001 World Series? I thought they were pretty decent but I'm not sure. After all, it was a very exciting series and involved the biggest TV market in the country. But I am pretty sure that the 2002 ASG ratings were the lowest ever. Hey, even though I consider myself a pretty dedicated fan, and even with 6 Red Sox players on the team, I just couldn't get all that excited about the ASG - it's getting to be a very cheesey non-event. I stuck around to watch the couple of innings that Derek Lowe pitched because it's just such a great story, going from failed closer to arguably the best pitcher in the AL in one season. Other than that, I had no interest.

I did some Google searching. The rating of 15.6 made the 2001 World Series the 3rd worst ever (worst being the 2000 Subway Series, and 2nd worst being the Padres-Yanks in 1998). However, Game 7 in 2001 was the highest-rated baseball telecast in a decade, and the overall 15.6 rating was up 26 percent from the 2000 record low.

The 2002 All-Star game was the lowest ever for games shown in prime time.

The strike (or lockout) if it occurs, will kill baseball. The sport has fallen in popularity over the last 30 years, and the past strikes are a prime reason. That, the cost of attending games, the sport's pace compared to other athletic competitions, and the outrageous salaries paid to these guys are all important variables in baseball's decline.

Why on earth does someone hitting a ball around a field deserve $5 million dollars a year, when people who have to prepare future generations for social, intellectual and civic participation make so much less? Any player who had the guts to take a radical paycut and play for $100,000 or even $500,000 would really draw not only commentary about his craziness, but probably draw fans who've given up baseball completely.

If they strike or enact a lockout, I have one word for the sport: sayonara!

No other sport has so much nostalgia, so much tradition, so much history to it than does Baseball. More than any other sport, Baseball has served as a tool by which we measure our own history, providing us this historical perspective in a way quite unique.

It is the perfect sport for life, beginning in the spring when we awake from our winter slumber, when life begins anew, when nature itself awakens.

It reaches it peak strength at a time when we as a people are at our own peak, in the summertime, when our energies and our desires are for the outdoors and for each other.

The game begins its slowdown in autumn, as we do, when nature and us begin to prepare for the coming cold and darkness of winter; yet it does not go quietly, instead bursting with one final climax in the postseason, leaving us to yearn for the spring, when once again it reminds us of what is so good.

It is sad to see its place in our nation so diminished. As a fan (first) of the game, I hope this does not continue. As an umpire of the game, one with an unfortunate inside look, I fear this hope may be futile.

Ump, you've got the soul of a poet going on behind that chest protecter. Post on! Pete

Well, I wouldn't go that far, notyou. A poet I am not; rather, I am just someone who appreciates the finer things in life--I hope--and baseball to me is one of these. It would make no difference to me if I never umpired the game, for it still holds a wonderful, magical, captive place in my heart.

I smile and feel warm inside when I see a father playing catch with his son on a baseball field. To me, baseball's purity, baseball's soul, can be seen in the eyes of those most unaffected by MLB's troubles. Those eyes belong to the Little Leaguers.

On one of my vacations not too long ago, while running an errand to the convenience store, I passed by a couple fields. On one was a father throwing the ball to his son, who looked about 8 or 9. On a field at the other end of the block was a Little League game. I stopped and watched it for a few minutes. I smiled. All seemed well with the world.

Alas, it was soon back to reality.

Thank you for the kind words, though, notyou.

Cordially...

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
The strike (or lockout) if it occurs, will kill baseball....

---

Sorry fantomas, I think you should change your handle to 'CryWolf.' This has been said before *every* stoppage... and while '94-95 certainly dealt a lingering blow, MLB recovered fan interest in 3-4 years. And it's likely this halt will be a short one.

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Why on earth do [players] deserve $5 million dollars a year, when [teachers] make so much less?

---

Umm, because that's how a capitalist society operates? Why not ask the same question about Steven Seagal, or better yet felonious CEOs? It's amazing how "mainstream" Americans can sound like a member of a 1930s Soviet collective when it comes to baseball player salaries... Or to quote Joe Sheehan of Baseball Prospectus, "Baseball isn't brain surgery, but I don't see luxury boxes in operating theaters."

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Any player who had the guts to take a radical paycut and play for $100,000 or even $500,000 ....

---

would spark my support for the resurrection of the House Un-American Activities Committee.

You're actually Peter Angelos, aren't you?

Now now now ... don't be accusing anyone of being Peter Angelos. That's really a very low blow.

There will be a strike. It may be long. It may be short. But it will happen. Why? Because the players are convinced they'll win.

I recently read a quote from Damion Easley, the player rep for the Detroit Tigers, to that effect: the players have benefitted from each and every previous work stoppage, so they can only gain if there's one in 2002. Unlike player reps like Tommy Glavine, I've never heard that Easley's had much reputation as an original thinker. If Easley's talking like this, one can assume that's the consensus among major leaguers.

As far as most players think: the overall level of fan interest is irrelevant. It's how much money can they earn in their short careers. That hardly makes them unique as the ownership cares about TV revenue and luxury sky boxes ... overall fan interest being relevant only in the sense that it generates fatter TV contracts. If a strike is necessary to create the opportunity for continuing salary growth ... or at least to protect current high salary levels ... there will be a strike. Overall fan interest be damned.

Bill W, I completely agree with everything in your above post. You are correct in your assessment of the game, its survivability, the salaries, etc.

Now I must go and call 911, as I think I just heard the sound of Bill W. clutching his chest and hitting the floor because Ump25 agreed completely with him on something.

[quote]Originally posted by Bill W:
The strike (or lockout) if it occurs, will kill baseball....
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry fantomas, I think you should change your handle to 'CryWolf.' This has been said before *every* stoppage... and while '94-95 certainly dealt a lingering blow, MLB recovered fan interest in 3-4 years. And it's likely this halt will be a short one.

---

This "recovery" of fan interest was artificial, shallow and short-lived. New stadium openings revived some franchises a bit. These teams won't be opening new facilities for a while. And now overall attendance is down from last year.

They didn't build upon the McGwire-Sosa home run race. They didn't build upon the World Series or the goodwill created by baseball's handling of the 9/11 aftermath last year. Instead they tarnished their tattered reputation further with the steroid issue and contraction and the All-Star debacle.

People care less about baseball than they used to. People have far more options nowadays when it comes to their leisure hours--more sports, more cable channels, videogames, etc. Baseball won't be killed by a strike, but as I said before, it will become increasingly irrelevant. The longer the strike, the more irrelevant it becomes.

And now this little bit of news from ESPN.com informing us that the players could strike as early as AUGUST 16! Wasn't September 16 the original date? Anyway, this from ESPN:

[quote]Barring a surge of progress in labor talks this week, the executive board of the Major League Baseball Players' Association could confer by telephone by Friday to set a strike date, the earliest of which could be Aug. 16.

There are several possible dates on which the players would strike, but Aug. 16 appears to be the front-runner, with Sept. 1 as the other likely choice.

In the latest negotiating session between the union and management, which lasted for just an hour Friday, the sides said they would be available for meetings every day next week, when union head Donald Fehr hopes to pretty much conclude his tour of baseball's 30 teams.

The sides met for five hours Thursday and management negotiators expressed optimism.

Players, fearful that owners will change work rules or lock them out following the postseason, are threatening to call the sport's ninth work stoppage since 1972.

Pittsburgh players unanimously voted Friday to authorize the union's executive council to set a strike date.

"Something has to be done to press the issue and maybe this will help things along,'' Pirates player representative Kevin Young said. "Nobody on either side wants to see baseball come to a stop."

Fehr met Friday with the New York Mets.

"We have to continue to do what's right for the future of the game," Mets first baseman Mo Vaughn said after his team met with Fehr. "We know that if it comes down to it, we know what we've got to do."

Fehr is expected to meet Tuesday with the Houston Astros in New York, then go to Texas for meetings with the Rangers, New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox. He has yet to schedule a meeting with the Chicago Cubs.

---

I think the future health and well-being of MLB depends more on whether fundamental changes are made rather than whether or not there's a strike. The current system of 7 Snow Whites and 23 Dwarves (not exact figures, just striking a metaphor between the "have" and "have not" teams) is killing baseball more than anything else right now. How can MLB survive and flourish when there are so many dogs amongst the 30 teams?

If there's a strike, sure it'll hurt -- A LOT. But if the game comes back with some semblance of competitive parity, so that the small-market fans feel like they have something more than a snowball's chance and that games between, say, NYY & KC or Milwaukee & LA are actually fairly close calls, then I think baseball will bounce back. But even if a strike is averted, play continues uninterrupted, but the status quo of preposterous competitive imbalance persists, then baseball will continue to decline.

[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
The current system of 7 Snow Whites and 23 Dwarves (not exact figures, just striking a metaphor between the "have" and "have not" teams) is killing baseball ...

---

I know it doesn't fit my political profile, but it's fairly easy to see that since it's Beelzebud's #1 argument, the Woe of the Small-Market Teams is largely...a crock. KC, Pittsburgh etc have been victimized by dummies in the front office more than anything. Baltimore hasn't won anything on a huge payroll, and Oakland is doing nicely, thank you, on a bargain budget.

Yeah, you know you're on very thin ice whenever you find yourself agreeing with the man in the Don Knotts suits. Certainly, Baltimore has to have just about the stupidest owner(s) in all of baseball, whereas Oakland probably has the smartest GM in the game. But to what degree are those cases exceptions that prove the rule?

There was a great article a year or so ago (wish I could find a copy online) about all the IDIOT moves that NYY's Brian Cashman has made. Sure, he's done some smart moves, but he's also guilty of a surprising number of blunders. But why don't you hear more about Cashman's goofs? When you have the mother-of-all-revenue-streams, you just ladle out more $$$ to cover the mistake. I'm sure he gets his ass royally chewed out by George S. (something which apparently happens on a near-hourly basis), but the team's still fine. When you're the Kansas City Royals, you have no margin for error.

Does Oakland have a good team? Sure, thanks to the Billy Beane's baseball sagacity. But I still don't see Oakland winning the World Series this season. I don't see any small-market team winning the World Series, this season or any other. While we could debate that assertion 'til the cows come home, the fact remains that the majority of small-market baseball fans most likely share that gloomy forecast. Like it or not, while a lot of small-market disadvantages can be overcome by a competent front office, you'll never overcome all of them.

PS: Bill, Bill, Bill ... if only your views on baseball (loved your earlier response about players' salaries) would transfer over to the rest of your politics. <sarcasm>Just remember, the Republican party is a big tent.</sarcasm> There's plenty of room over here for ya

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: BoSoxRudy ]

[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
When you're the Kansas City Royals, you have no margin for error.

---

But when your top problem for the last several years was employing Tony Muser as manager, who most attentive 12-year-olds knew was the worst around, that's a beaut of an error. No sympathy here.

The A's *could've* won the World Series LAST year -- a few bounces (and a slide!) and they advance, not the Yankees. People set such store by slim margins in October that are partly due to luck. With the Yankees' fragile health in the starting rotation, they look awfully vulnerable to Anaheim, the Twins OR Oakland this time...

Rudy, the last Republican I liked in that "big tent" was Jacob Javits, and they carried him out awhile ago. (I never did like the circus.)

Yeah, and if Torre hadn't pulled the infield in, then maybe Paul O'Neill would be wearing a World Series ring on his thumb. But Oakland didn't win the World Series last year, and neither Oakland nor any small-market team will ever win the World Series unless some serious changes are made. Sure, they can contend, but they can't win it all. And that perception, right or wrong, is hurting Major league Baseball.

You need money and brains to win a World Series. Hey, by trading away Ted Lilly and ending up with Jeff "every start is an implosion waiting to happen" Weaver, the Yankees revealed that they might not be as smart as everybody thought they were. But even if Oakland ends up in the WS, I'm still picking Arizona or Atlanta.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: BoSoxRudy ]

Come on Rudy, this is BASEBALL. Anyone can win a short series, even the '73 Mets or the '88 Dodgers. To say an Oakland can *never* win the WS is hyperbole -- and if the A's get in this year, I may take that bet.

[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
Yeah, and if Torre hadn't pulled the infield in, then maybe Paul O'Neill would be wearing a World Series ring on his thumb.

---

Paul O'Neill DOES wear a World Series ring on his thumb. He won a championships with the Cincinnatti Reds in 1990, then four with the Yankees in 1996, 98, 99, and 2000.

BTW, the cries of poverty coming from a Red Sox fan strike me as a bit odd. The Sox haven't generally been averse to spending big money on free agents; I think the difference between the Sox and Yankees is more due to different skill at evaluating talent. And, of course, The Curse.

EEEK! Please don't think for a moment that I'm crying poverty!! Let me be the first to state that the Red Sox are most definitively a HAVE in the sorting out of have's and have not's. Past and present, the Red Sox have only themselves to blame for their 84-and-counting World Series-less years. In the past, you had idiots in the front office and even more idiotic "non-owner" owners (the bozos heading up the Yawkey Trust). This year, I'm just baffled. How do you have Damon, Nomar, and Manny in the same lineup yet still have a mediocre offense? How do you start with the likes of Pedro and D-Lowe, close with Embree and Urbina, yet still have a mediocre pitching staff?

Please, don't get me started on the frustrations of a 2002 Boston Red Sox fan. I could go on and on (or did I already?). But even if I'm a Red Sox die-hard nowadays, I grew up in Kansas City. You can't imagine how much it bums me out that my old hometown team just has no chance. I don't care who you put in the front office or in the manager's uniform, I don't think Kansas City or any other small-market team will ever win the World Series, just my humble opinion.

I think Bill W is correct that it's possible to win a world series as a small-market team--the Pittsburgh Pirates of the early '90s (or last year's A's) were certainly good enough. The problem is sustaining excellence, once your players qualify for free agency (or even arbitration). Sure, money alone isn't enough to win...but it is basically the difference between the Pittsburgh Pirates and the Atlanta Braves who had similar talent pools in the early '90s. Or between the New York Yankees and the Montreal Expos ca. 1994.

from Letterman: Top 10 Good Things About a Baseball Strike
10. Players can spend more quality time with their performance-enhancing drugs.
9. Plenty of stadium parking available.
8. Will be spared the gruesome sight of Mo Vaughn adjusting his cup.
7. Yankee Stadium becomes affordable place for weddings and bar mitzvahs.
6. World Series of Poker would finally get the attention it deserves.
5. Fun to think, with each passing day Alex Rodriguez is out another 85 grand.
4. Have you seen the Devil Rays?
3. Exhausted, overworked baseball players deserve a long rest.
2. Fewer drunken New Yorkers riding the D-train.
1. Gives Mike Piazza a chance to catch up on all the Broadway theater he's missed.