Can rules changes save baseball?

Sad Sam Jones

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
1,769
I think games should be easier to access, rule changes, especially limiting the dead time will help, but I'm a sox fan in NH. I don't have cable, and its a 2+ hour drive to a game. I'm blacked out of any way to watch the games except paying for an expensive monthly cable/online package that I wouldn't use for anything else. I like the sox, but $70+ a month to watch them isn't going to happen.

I make do with radio (also sometimes difficult because of blackouts/poor reception, and I don't actually own a radio anymore so this is really a car only option) and internet highlights, I used to watch 100+ games a year, go to a couple and pay a lot more attention. The last several years I just haven't been able to because it's such a pain. As a result my son never got interested and now focuses on other things.
If you have a smart phone and reception, the MLB At-Bat app is $19.99/year or $2.99/mo for access to radio broadcasts of all games. Mondays-Wednesdays I'm not done working until the games are at least half over, so I find that easily worth it.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
7,313
Games are far easier to access than they were like 10-15 years ago, though. There was a time not so long ago that a out of market fan was SOL for watching games of their team. Technology has enabled fans to follow their teams much more closely now. I think it’s hurt the overall appeal of the game- I watch most Sox games, but rarely games of other teams- but things are much better for fans than they were years ago. Hell, as a kid, if I wanted to watch the Sox I had to convince my dad to go down to the cable company and pick up a different cable box that cost like $15 a month. Needless to say, I didn’t watch nesn until it was added to basic cable.
 

Import78

Member
SoSH Member
May 29, 2007
2,033
West Lebanon, NH
Games are far easier to access than they were like 10-15 years ago, though. There was a time not so long ago that a out of market fan was SOL for watching games of their team. Technology has enabled fans to follow their teams much more closely now. I think it’s hurt the overall appeal of the game- I watch most Sox games, but rarely games of other teams- but things are much better for fans than they were years ago. Hell, as a kid, if I wanted to watch the Sox I had to convince my dad to go down to the cable company and pick up a different cable box that cost like $15 a month. Needless to say, I didn’t watch nesn until it was added to basic cable.
This depends, really. I had an easier time accessing them 15 years ago than I do today. There are theoretically more options, but blackout areas eliminate every online option, radio might work, but cable is pretty much it up here.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
6,684
CA
I think the combination that baseball is currently very healthy as mentioned in the OP, has pretty limited international exposure thus far, and as an institution has shown a willingness to address their weaknesses with new rules etc. gives a high probability that baseball will be just fine over the long term. It’s a great game — it’s in America’s DNA, it feels like they will figure it out.
 

allmanbro

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
309
Portland, Maine
Baseball is the only sport where those in charge of continuously talk about how long and boring the games are, and then act surprised when fans say the games are long and boring? Baseball leaders should do a better job of actually promoting the game and those who play it and what makes it great. If they are going to make changes, just make them instead of debating them endlessly. They also need to stop obsessing over trying to appeal to the people who don’t actually like baseball. There’s a lot of people who do- it has the #2 most fans of any US sports property for a reason.
Flipping around on MLB.TV or even watching national/playoff games, I am often completely shocked at how much time announcers spend complaining about how baseball is played today. It's wild. These are supposed to be the people explaining, advocating, and selling the game to viewers. But some significant percentage of the time you are watching the game, there is someone actively telling you how baseball sucks. Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if the overall average is near 10% of airtime; much higher with some announcers than others of course.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,008
Portland
I've mentioned this before, but aside from reviews and mound consultations, the biggest temptation to switch over to something else is on pick off attempts.

When both the home and away fans hate the same thing, it's something that ought to be fixed. It's the icing the kicker of MLB.
 

teddywingman

Looks like Zach Galifianakis
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2009
10,206
a basement on the hill
Well I don't know how you keep the running game excitement going if you're wanting to limit throws over to first. Seems impossible.

Making batters stay in the box is where the pace of game needs to start. A pitcher can't just fuck around while a batter is ready to hit. The problem in the current equation is as much, if not more on the hitter.

On another note, some of the most memorable games were 12 or more innings. Even if I didn't see the end (as a kid) or hear it on the radio; reading about a game that went deep into the night always got me excited to watch the next game.

Putting a runner on second is defeatist, let's just get it over-with bullshit. I can't believe how anyone here approves. It's the dumbest rule idea possible.

Sorry the game is in extras and you have to go beddy bye. Fuck off.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
27,583
So at some point in the future, I think one or more of the following will need to happen:
  1. Baseball dramatically cuts the number of games that get played. Something like one 3-game series each week from Friday to Sunday.
  2. Baseball dramatically cuts down the time a game lasts, which could probably only happen by reducing the number of innings from 9 to 6 or something like that.
  3. Baseball accepts its status as a niche sport along the lines of golf and hockey.
I think #3 is the only realistic outcome in the short term, but if interest ever drops to the level where the owners think they could make more money by reducing number of games/number of innings they will at least have to consider it. To be clear, I'm not suggesting these are changes that are going to happen anytime soon, I just think they are ultimately inevitable further down the road.
As for #2, they could easily make games faster by starting hitters at a 1-1 count.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
7,313
Flipping around on MLB.TV or even watching national/playoff games, I am often completely shocked at how much time announcers spend complaining about how baseball is played today. It's wild. These are supposed to be the people explaining, advocating, and selling the game to viewers. But some significant percentage of the time you are watching the game, there is someone actively telling you how baseball sucks. Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if the overall average is near 10% of airtime; much higher with some announcers than others of course.
Right? You never hear NFL announcers whining about how there is actually only 11 minutes of real action in a game, or whatever it is.
 

Heating up in the bullpen

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2007
779
Pittsboro NC
If you have a smart phone and reception, the MLB At-Bat app is $19.99/year or $2.99/mo for access to radio broadcasts of all games. Mondays-Wednesdays I'm not done working until the games are at least half over, so I find that easily worth it.
MLB AT-Bat is great if you live out of market. I'm in North Carolina and its been my lifeline to increased Red Sox attention. But I can't watch Red Sox-Orioles or Red Sox-Nationals games; they're blacked out for me since I'm in their market. Import78 is in New Hampshire, so can't get ANY Red Sox games. MLB needs to end the in-market blackouts for At-Bat.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
To address the original question...Perhaps it's six to one and one half dozen to another, but I think that revitalization might be a better term than saving. Baseball has been extremely ridged when it's come to changing the way that the game has been played. The game itself and a large part of the fan base are deeply steeped in the game's tradition and over time there has been a certain romanticism of the game as being timeless. It's records are more revered than those in any other game and the game's stats are always use as points of reference when comparing not only players, but eras. That said, metrics have become so advanced and have become a HUGE part of not only how the game is played and managed on the field, but also how front offices assess their own players and potential trade/FA targets. Knowledge is power and MLB has embraced this new age way of approaching the game, yet has remained antiquated in many ways and now is trying playing catch up with the rules. IMO the universal DH should have come long ago. It was inevitable and the introduction of inter-league play was the perfect time to do that. Pace of play has been an issue for better than a decade, yet as of now the only on field measure that has been taken to address this is the restriction on mound visits and the three batter rule for relievers. The pitch clock looks to be coming, but it's way overdue. The over sized bases may prevent some injuries and that's a good thing and if they add a small amount of excitement to the game via stolen bases that's also a good thing. I'm a bit mixed on the shift rule change (I won't call it a ban), but I'm all for keeping the infielders in the infield.

I like that baseball has realized the need to do something to make the game more attractive, but I think that the game could have avoided much of the bad rap that it's gotten if much of this had been implemented many years ago as these needs were recognized. I thought the "ghost runner" was a great addition to the game that not only in large part got rid of games lasting more than 12 innings, but gave fans an interest in extra inning games. IMO extra inning games become exciting when players get into scoring position, more so with less than two outs. Starting out extras with a runner on 2B give the fans that level of excitement right from the get go with both teams having the same opportunity with the likelihood that the game will be over in fairly short order. Ironically this seems to be going away after this year, I hope the powers to be reconsider. Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
 

Sad Sam Jones

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
1,769
MLB AT-Bat is great if you live out of market. I'm in North Carolina and its been my lifeline to increased Red Sox attention. But I can't watch Red Sox-Orioles or Red Sox-Nationals games; they're blacked out for me since I'm in their market. Import78 is in New Hampshire, so can't get ANY Red Sox games. MLB needs to end the in-market blackouts for At-Bat.
Is that true for MLB At Bat radio broadcasts? I've never used MLB.TV, but I just looked it up and I'm in a blackout area for Cleveland (80 mi. away). However, I've been using At Bat for the radio broadcasts for I think 6 years now and have never been blocked from listening to a game.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
6,559
Boston, MA
Is that true for MLB At Bat radio broadcasts? I've never used MLB.TV, but I just looked it up and I'm in a blackout area for Cleveland (80 mi. away). However, I've been using At Bat for the radio broadcasts for I think 6 years now and have never been blocked from listening to a game.
Blackouts do not apply to radio broadcasts. You can use the app to listen to any radio feed anywhere.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
738
I've been surprised by how many here find pace of play to be an important issue. We've had some posters argue that the pitchers are the main culprit, and others argue that it's actually batters stepping out of the box. For a long time I've felt that these concerns were overblown, and their proposed remedies--a pitch clock, a prohibition on stepping out of the box--were over the top. But this board is made up of hardcore baseball fans, and it's clear that most of you support rules that would speed up the pace of play. After reading some of these persuasive arguments, I think it may be time for me to reevaluate my opinion.

Along those lines, I have definitely come to enjoy the new rule that relievers must face a minimum of three batters or complete an inning. I think that rule was designed mostly to shorten game lengths by reducing the number of pitching changes, but I ended up liking how it forced managers to be more strategic/creative in their bullpen usage, and it introduced some drama by forcing relievers to sometimes throw in match-ups that don't play to their strengths.

Perhaps it's six to one and one half dozen to another, but I think that revitalization might be a better term than saving
This is fair. I mentioned in my original post that I was being hyperbolic with the thread title, but it's worth restating that I don't think baseball needs saving. And I like your term. Baseball does need revitalizing. It needs more energy--some tweaks of the rules that make it a little less efficient but a little more fun. And some of that probably comes as much or more from loosening up the unwritten rules as the ones in the actual rule book. I think it was @BaseballJones who called for letting them flip the damn bat after a big home run. I agree. Let Tatis smash the 3-0 meatball for a grand slam.
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
5,090
from the wilds of western ma
Pitch clock and I grew to like the extra innings man on second. That’s it. Stop moaning about ”three true outcomes” and how boring it all is and stop screwing with the sport I love. It’s deliberate and slow paced with tension that builds up over time often before leading to incredible single moments.
Agree, with one more for me. All in on eliminating the shift. That should help produce more base runners, and mitigate a little bit of the three true outcome stuff. Otherwise, MLB needs to stop thinking they can return the game to its prominence of the 20th century. It's settled into to a good, healthy niche in this extremely fragmented culture of countless entertainment and distraction options. And by many metrics, is thriving(franchise values, sales of licensed products, the continued success of the key RSN's that carry baseball, etc.) They're never getting the national TV ratings they once had, even for marquee events, again. Football is the only sport, and maybe the only thing in general, that can do that anymore. Make a few needed calibrations(I also like universal DH, and think a matinee WS game every year is a good idea as well) and stop screwing with it any further.
 
Last edited:

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,161
02130
So at some point in the future, I think one or more of the following will need to happen:
  1. Baseball dramatically cuts the number of games that get played. Something like one 3-game series each week from Friday to Sunday.
  2. Baseball dramatically cuts down the time a game lasts, which could probably only happen by reducing the number of innings from 9 to 6 or something like that.
  3. Baseball accepts its status as a niche sport along the lines of golf and hockey.
I do really like #1 and have thought it would be a good idea for a while. Ticket and day-of-game revenue is so big that it is unlikely to happen, but as I grow older and have many more things to do, it's basically impossible for me to follow an MLB season and watch more than 50 or so games live. So I'm missing two-thirds of the season and my interest has gravitated more towards games like football where I can watch every game, or basketball where I catch most of them and almost all the playoffs. I would support things like a pitch clock but I'm fine with having the game on for 3 or 4 hours -- I just don't have time to do that 6 days a week, and then when I do tune in I have missed things.

This would also really up the quality of play, I think. Back ends of the rotation and the pen would be a thing of the past and you'd never see bad pitchers or futility infielders unless a game was completely out of hand or there were a lot of injuries. Each game would matter much more but you'd also have your best starters pitching most of them so I think the best teams would win just as often, or even more often (Right now many games and seasons are decided on the quality of a team's pitching depth and not so much the quality of their top pitchers). Maybe someone like Gerrit Cole or Chris Sale when healthy becomes super-valuable but is that a problem? And if you only need 10 instead of 13 pitchers on your roster, maybe you can have more specialists and substitutions among position players.

What I like about this too is it doesn't actually change the structure of each game too much, and if you still had 3-game series you would still have some strategy with relievers and so on (Do you use your closer in all three games, do you let him go 2+ innings in game 1 to put a game away or not, etc). It just ups the drama of each game and if you wanted to have MLB pivot to be more of an "event" this is the way to go.
 

teddywingman

Looks like Zach Galifianakis
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2009
10,206
a basement on the hill
Less baseball is the answer?

I love that there's a game almost every day. I may not see that many of em these days, but checking the box scores brings some joy.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
49,922
Less baseball is the answer?

I love that there's a game almost every day. I may not see that many of em these days, but checking the box scores brings some joy.
The things that would be eliminated by something like the pitch clock do not lead to less actual baseball. Each team still has 27 outs to play with.

Shortening the play clock in football wouldn't lead to less actual football, just less time between plays.
 

Sad Sam Jones

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
1,769
Baseball might get better ratings per game if there are fewer of them, but having baseball on a daily basis is what really differentiates it from other sports. It's a long leisurely journey and it's a comfort that it's always there. It's a potential backdrop for every summer evening rather than having to wait days or a week for the next game. I'm disappointed whenever I have no plans for a summer evening only to realize it's a travel day. I'd be a bigger basketball fan if they played more often or at least had a consistent regular schedule. It takes too much effort to figure out and remember when the next basketball game is going to be played.
 

teddywingman

Looks like Zach Galifianakis
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2009
10,206
a basement on the hill
The things that would be eliminated by something like the pitch clock do not lead to less actual baseball. Each team still has 27 outs to play with.

Shortening the play clock in football wouldn't lead to less actual football, just less time between plays.
I was responding to the suggestions that there should only be 3 games a week, or some such nonsense.
 

drbretto

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
11,500
Concord, NH
Only thing that will save baseball for me is getting rid of the blackout rules. If MLB Extra Innings was an app on my TV and I didn't have to fart around with a VPN just to watch the Sox, I'd get right back into it. It would pretty much be default background noise until it hooked me right back in.

I know there are workarounds, but I'm just not doing all that to fix the dumbest thing. If they want to survive the times, they need to do it like everyone else. Slide that app right into everyone's devices and make it nice and cheap, if not free with ads.

I didn't set out to watch 837 episodes of "8 out of 10 cats" on YouTube. The algorithm saw I was tired and was like "here you go" so I watched them. That's how it works now. If you want those eyeballs back, put yo shit in front of them.
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
20,739
Unreal America
Thinking about this, it seems to me that a lot of the most athletic plays in the sport - and after all, people are going to watch competition and athleticism - have left the sport. Sure there's athleticism to throwing pitches and hitting home runs but plays like stealing, taking the extra base, and throwing guys out on the basepaths - those have fallen by the wayside. And with the reduction of baserunners, it also seems that a lot of the action has been reduced too.

But maybe that's just me.
To address the original question...Perhaps it's six to one and one half dozen to another, but I think that revitalization might be a better term than saving. Baseball has been extremely ridged when it's come to changing the way that the game has been played. The game itself and a large part of the fan base are deeply steeped in the game's tradition and over time there has been a certain romanticism of the game as being timeless. It's records are more revered than those in any other game and the game's stats are always use as points of reference when comparing not only players, but eras. That said, metrics have become so advanced and have become a HUGE part of not only how the game is played and managed on the field, but also how front offices assess their own players and potential trade/FA targets. Knowledge is power and MLB has embraced this new age way of approaching the game, yet has remained antiquated in many ways and now is trying playing catch up with the rules. IMO the universal DH should have come long ago. It was inevitable and the introduction of inter-league play was the perfect time to do that. Pace of play has been an issue for better than a decade, yet as of now the only on field measure that has been taken to address this is the restriction on mound visits and the three batter rule for relievers. The pitch clock looks to be coming, but it's way overdue. The over sized bases may prevent some injuries and that's a good thing and if they add a small amount of excitement to the game via stolen bases that's also a good thing. I'm a bit mixed on the shift rule change (I won't call it a ban), but I'm all for keeping the infielders in the infield.

I like that baseball has realized the need to do something to make the game more attractive, but I think that the game could have avoided much of the bad rap that it's gotten if much of this had been implemented many years ago as these needs were recognized. I thought the "ghost runner" was a great addition to the game that not only in large part got rid of games lasting more than 12 innings, but gave fans an interest in extra inning games. IMO extra inning games become exciting when players get into scoring position, more so with less than two outs. Starting out extras with a runner on 2B give the fans that level of excitement right from the get go with both teams having the same opportunity with the likelihood that the game will be over in fairly short order. Ironically this seems to be going away after this year, I hope the powers to be reconsider. Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
These two posts well encapsulate my opinion on this topic. Great stuff.

I'll also add an additional POV... I get to see a lot of sports-related research, and something that stuck out to me recently is that a majority of those under the age of 35 follow the NBA primarily through highlights and/or social media. This isn't to say that they don't watch games at all, but that's definitely a smaller portion of their fandom, and tends to be reserved for "big games" of their favorite teams or players. These aren't casual fans though, they are avid. They just consume the sport differently than most of us when we were that age.

It was mentioned upthread that baseball has a unique problem of having its biggest stars involved in an incredibly small amount of the game. No amount of changes length, start times or replay is going to change that. However, changes that produce more action will have the benefit of creating more highlights, which in turn can be consumed by younger fans. Honestly, a lot of home runs aren't terribly exciting. But a guy scoring from 1st on a double? A stolen base? A rope to the gap? That's action and highlight worthy.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
65,753
Baseball might get better ratings per game if there are fewer of them, but having baseball on a daily basis is what really differentiates it from other sports. It's a long leisurely journey and it's a comfort that it's always there. It's a potential backdrop for every summer evening rather than having to wait days or a week for the next game. I'm disappointed whenever I have no plans for a summer evening only to realize it's a travel day. I'd be a bigger basketball fan if they played more often or at least had a consistent regular schedule. It takes too much effort to figure out and remember when the next basketball game is going to be played.
Wow, for me the opposite, I find the NBA season far too long, I like to watch most or all of the playoffs but the regular season is at least 20 games too long.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
7,616
New York City
That is some nonsense.
I was the one who raised that initially, and just to be clear I wasn't suggesting it "should" happen - I was just agreeing with the OP that relatively minor changes in length of game or style of play are not going to attract new fans, and if baseball really wanted to try to do that it would have to make MUCH more drastic changes.

The rule changes discussed in this thread are pretty much all good ideas because they would improve the viewing experience for people who are already fans, but they won't do much if anything to attract new fans, and if Manfred/MLB think they will, they are going to be pretty disappointed, I think.
 

Sad Sam Jones

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
1,769
To be clear, I'm not begging for a longer basketball season. I'm just saying the sporadic nature of their scheduling is a serious bug for me. I usually don't realize a game is being played until I'm checking scores and it's half over. I find the daily routine of baseball or the weekly event of football much easier to connect to and follow along throughout a season.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
7,616
New York City
To be clear, I'm not begging for a longer basketball season. I'm just saying the sporadic nature of their scheduling is a serious bug for me. I usually don't realize a game is being played until I'm checking scores and it's half over. I find the daily routine of baseball or the weekly event of football much easier to connect to and follow along throughout a season.
Assuming you have a smart phone made in the last decade or so, you can use the ESPN app or any other sports app to give you a notification when a game is starting.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
20,238
Rogers Park
The biggest change I would like to see is MLB getting more involved in cross-promotion of the global game.

Soccer fans typically follow one team or league closely, but are more or less aware of what's going on in other leagues (the good teams, star players, etc.), and I think that's the direction we want to move in. American enthusiasm for global soccer is undeniably great for the local league, and MLB is obviously in a much stronger position than MLS. I would like to see MLB think about ways of marketing and promoting Caribbean, Asian, and European baseball in ways that help keep baseball in the sports news in the state year round. Like, why doesn't MLB Network secure rights to broadcast a slate of LIDOM and PRWL games during the offseason? I doubt it would be expensive — I'm sure it would draw better ratings than whatever they show in the offseason — it would absolutely rule, and it would help build the sport.

The synergies are less obvious with the Asian leagues because the seasons overlap. There's no obvious time to air a bunch of KBO games. But pop culture is so global now; just as a bunch of American teens are reading Manga while drinking Boba and listening to KPop, you could imagine some young people getting really excited about the LG Twins or whatever. And I bet that could produce knock on benefits for the Minnesota Twins, you know?
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
20,739
Unreal America
These two posts well encapsulate my opinion on this topic. Great stuff.

I'll also add an additional POV... I get to see a lot of sports-related research, and something that stuck out to me recently is that a majority of those under the age of 35 follow the NBA primarily through highlights and/or social media. This isn't to say that they don't watch games at all, but that's definitely a smaller portion of their fandom, and tends to be reserved for "big games" of their favorite teams or players. These aren't casual fans though, they are avid. They just consume the sport differently than most of us when we were that age.

It was mentioned upthread that baseball has a unique problem of having its biggest stars involved in an incredibly small amount of the game. No amount of changes length, start times or replay is going to change that. However, changes that produce more action will have the benefit of creating more highlights, which in turn can be consumed by younger fans. Honestly, a lot of home runs aren't terribly exciting. But a guy scoring from 1st on a double? A stolen base? A rope to the gap? That's action and highlight worthy.
Mark Cuban agrees with me...

Mavericks Owner Mark Cuban recently indicated a TikTok-like presentation of sports “is the future of sports media.” During an appearance on Colin Cowherd’s podcast, Cuban noted a presentation similar to that on the social media app “could save baseball in terms of sports media because baseball actually is the perfect sport to present every at-bat.” TikTok uses AI “to present the things you’re interested in,” meaning that if someone likes “ Luka Doncic’s dunks, NBA stuff, dogs, you’re just going to get a steady stream of that.” Cuban: “If Major League Baseball did a TikTok version ... and all I care about was (Shohei) Ohtani, the Texas Rangers and the Pittsburgh Pirates and every impactful at-bat -- bottom of the ninth or runners in scoring position ... that’s the future of sports media.” He noted that is important because teenagers and pre-teens are “not going to ... sit for a full game, it’s just not going to happen” (“The Colin Cowherd Podcast,” 3/23).
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Mark Cuban agrees with me...
I don't disagree with the idea that sports are being and will continue to be viewed differently. These different social media apps are an evolution of highlight shows that provide a more personalized viewing. I'm not sure if that "saves" the game. I certainly don't think that it drives fans to the ball parks and in fact may do the opposite. What does it mean for all of these huge TV contracts if people aren't viewing traditionally?. Are advertisers going to pull back?
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
6,559
Boston, MA
Have kids and teens ever sat down to watch entire games? When I was a kid I followed things by collecting baseball cards, looking at box scores, and watching some games here and there. As a teen, I'd follow baseball by watching Sportscenter or ESPN News for the highlights. I'm sure there are some exceptions, but it seems like adults have always been the ones who will have the game on TV while it's happening live.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Have kids and teens ever sat down to watch entire games? When I was a kid I followed things by collecting baseball cards, looking at box scores, and watching some games here and there. As a teen, I'd follow baseball by watching Sportscenter or ESPN News for the highlights. I'm sure there are some exceptions, but it seems like adults have always been the ones who will have the game on TV while it's happening live.
I had the game on the whole time. Doesn't mean I'd be paying attention. Baseball has always been amazing background noise and now it's great 2nd screen material.

I'd also watch national games. In my teen years, I'd always have some sporting event on TV.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
17,965
Maine
Have kids and teens ever sat down to watch entire games? When I was a kid I followed things by collecting baseball cards, looking at box scores, and watching some games here and there. As a teen, I'd follow baseball by watching Sportscenter or ESPN News for the highlights. I'm sure there are some exceptions, but it seems like adults have always been the ones who will have the game on TV while it's happening live.
When I was a kid/teen, not every game was available on TV even if I wanted to watch. I did a lot of listening to games with a radio under my pillow as a result. Most of my live game viewing was Sunday afternoons because every Sunday game was on channel 38, usually preceded by This Week in Baseball which is how I consumed most of my non-Sox baseball. There was also a stretch where I watched a lot more Braves games than Red Sox games because TBS was on basic cable and NESN was a premium channel my folks didn't want to pay for.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
When I was a kid/teen, not every game was available on TV even if I wanted to watch. I did a lot of listening to games with a radio under my pillow as a result. Most of my live game viewing was Sunday afternoons because every Sunday game was on channel 38, usually preceded by This Week in Baseball which is how I consumed most of my non-Sox baseball. There was also a stretch where I watched a lot more Braves games than Red Sox games because TBS was on basic cable and NESN was a premium channel my folks didn't want to pay for.
I might be a bit older as we didn't have TBS (I don't think it was established yet), but Sunday Sox games on WSBK preceded by This Week in Baseball and weeknight games on the transistor radio are VERY familiar. We also got WPIX channel 11 out of New York for Yankee games. There seemed to be more Yankee broadcasts than Sox at the time, but that along with a weekly Saturday game on NBC was the extent of coverage that we got. TWIB was great for hitting all of the previous week's highlights and bloopers with a few features added in. It was also the biggest exposure that we got to National League stars. We knew of them and if NBC featured an NL game on a particular weekend you would get to see a few play, but TWIB was must see each week if you wanted a glimpse of what Mays, Aaron, Rose, Clemente and Seaver were up to.
 

Daniel_Son

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2021
1,137
San Diego
Have corporate sponsors somehow invest more to reduce the price of going to games. No idea how to pull this off but for me to take my family of 6 to Fenway costs me a fortune. Find a way to make ballpark tickets more affordable.
To me, this is the biggest failure in the sport, and nothing else comes particularly close. You know what made me a fan for life? Being a nine-year-old kid and walking up the concourse and seeing the Green Monster in person for the first time. Getting a hotdog and a soda in the 5th inning. Hearing the roar of the crowd. You want to grow the game, stop making it impossible for a young family to attend.