And, as noted upthread, with the DH having become predominant in lower levels of baseball over the past few decades, many MLB pitchers stopped getting much (if any) practice at batting years before they reached the majors.
I doubt if this is a big factor.
A lot of players have alternated between more and less active roles, e.g. backups and pinch-hitters, without a noticeable dropoff in hitting in the more limited roles. And no one ever says “hey, this guy is hitting .220 in a backup role so let’s make him a starter and we can assume he’ll hit .280”.
That’s true for other positions as well. You can be the best center fielder ever, but if you can’t hit, you won’t be on the team.
A partial exception is catcher, because catching is quite demanding, and a very good defensive catcher who isn’t a great hitter can still be a valuable player - a good example is Jacon Stallings.
While this has some truth to it, it really is mostly just the natural selection angle. Shortstops must have some rudimentary level of hitting skill, and so they are selected for that. Pitchers don’t need it and so they don’t get selected for it.
If you look at hitters who play sparingly, bench guys, they are never as consistently incompetent as pitchers. Pitchers couldn’t hit for shit even before the DH, when they WERE batting all the way up the minor league ladder.
And even Stallings really isn’t all THAT bad a hitter.
I’m sorry but I think you misunderstood; you are repeating the same argument I made.
Eh…this site agrees with you but it is FAR from cheap to see any professional sporting game.
Add to that there are what…ten home football games versus 80(ish) home baseball games?
And, IIRC, the most expensive sporting tickets ever sold were for the Chicago Cubs in the World Series a few years ago.
MLB games may be less expensive overall but they are far from a bargain or cheap.
(I’d like to see a comparison of season ticket prices but my quick Google search did not find anything)
It’s not like you’re expecting to go the every game. The fact that there are so many baseball games makes it a lot easier to go to one.
Certainly true. But, it also means a MLB park owner can charge a lot less per game than an NFL owner and make the same money. The MLB owner has 70 more opportunities at selling a seat and a beer and a hot dog than the NFL owner does (not to mention TV advertising and merchandise).
But, we don’t see anything like a 1/70 per game decrease in costs (give or take) to attend the game.
That reminds me of 10 years ago when you could get Cubs tickets for less than a buck on the last home series of the season, though the service fees pushed the total up closer to $10.
I remember getting bleacher tickets on the day of a game for the Cubs for $7 in the early 90s (which is worth about $15 today). A very nice, sunny day too and on a weekend.
This showed up in my inbox this morning.
That’s a pack of tickets for any 10 weekday games at any time in the season. The 39 weekday games include three against the hated Cubs (which always sell out) three against the Brewers, three against the Dodgers (last chance to see Albert Pujols) and two against the cross-state Royals.
Sure, the seats are terrible, but it’s cheaper than a movie, and the $6 per game in Cards cash will get you a really big pretzel.
But they also aren’t a real reason imo for why baseball is losing out to other sports.
Besides one could easily get a $20 ticket to a random baseball game any night.
They also have to pay for staffing every game. Most professional sports teams don’t make most of their revenue on GameDay sales and merch. They make it on TV deals and the NFL makes substantially more revenue, mostly due to TV. Partially due to limited supply.
Maybe…not so sure.
I remember going to Wrigley Field (Chicago Cubs) on game day to scalp tickets. Basically the scalpers needed to unload their stash and prices were good. But, it seems too many people got hip to that game and now forget it. You’re lucky to get face value after the 5th inning is over and you’ve missed more than half the game. (of course, can vary depending on who they are playing against and the weather at the moment)
Also, unless you are a local, parking costs a fortune around the stadium. Easily $30 or more. Smart people park far away and take mass transit in but those pricey lots still fill up.
Then you have the $10+ beers and $7+ hot dogs.
So how are other sports charging more and having far less issues? You think NBA games have cheaper food or less expensive parking? And you are going to find much more expensive cheap seat tickets.
The “big four” U.S. leagues all have serious issues with affordability of attending a game, particularly for a family, and those with more modest incomes.
The NFL and NBA, at least, seem to have better and more accessible TV viewing options, as well as likely doing a better job of marketing their sports to younger fans.
Sure, but those games still sell very well. And the average fan base is a good deal younger. I don’t think it’s the cost of going to the ballpark is a significant barrier to making baseball more popular to younger fans.
And the NBA has the same TV situation as the MLB: national contacts for a few games a week bolstered by regional sports network deals in the local region. In Atlanta, I can watch (as a percentage) more Braves games than Hawks games since I don’t have the RSN Bally Sports.
Asking because I honestly don’t know: how easy or difficult is it for someone to watch NBA games through streaming, compared to MLB games? My understanding is that younger people, generally, are more likely to be cord-cutters than older ones, and more likely to be watching any content through streaming services.
It’s the same as MLB. NBA League Pass is the same as MLB At Bat with the same sort of blackout restrictions (although I believe MLB At Bat was a much better streaming technology as BAMtech now powers a lot of streamers).
I’d argue a lot of those young people look for streams on the internet.
Baseball went to hell when they let pitchers start throwing overhand.