I'm so tired of stupid sportswriter condescension. (Indians, Red Sox)

The BBQ Pit
21

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Yesterday NPR ran a bit on the Rockies and their amazing run. So they go to some SI buffoon who talks as though he actually knows anything. Fine. The Rockies have been good and can use the hype. However, when the SI twit started talking about the rest of the playoffs, he finished his entire spiel without mentioning the Indians once, while spending a paragraph or two addressing how the Rockies would need to play to handle the Bosox. It was just silly.
[/QUOTE]

No shit. I remember reading some jackass on cnnsi.com before the playoffs began who picked the Indians as the team most likely to be swept. Wonder how much they’re paying him for HIS baseball (non)knowledge?

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
The funny thing is that World Series ratings have been roughly the same for the whole decade, regardless of who’s playing.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, well, stupid people, like those who cover sports (I’ve been hard on sportswriters here, but I think television personalities are much, much worse) never let the facts get in the way of sounding off authoritatively. Remember back in the mid-to-late 1990s, when the NFC had won something like 13 straight Super Bowls? It was nothing but a coincidence, but this “fact” was trotted out every January as a reason to pick the NFC teams to win. Then the Broncos won two straight and finally put an end to that b.s. The AFC has won most of the Super Bowls since then. Big whoop, huh?

22

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
The funny thing is that World Series ratings have been roughly the same for the whole decade, regardless of who’s playing.

[/QUOTE]

I disagree. You can clearly see a downward trend in the ratings since the strike in 94, except for a few spikes like in 2003, 2001, and 1999. Guess who played in those series?

No, really… Guess!

23

[QUOTE=Freddy the Pig]
. . . the thought that South Florida or Boston College . . . would play in the national championship game.
[/QUOTE]

Go Eagles!

24

[QUOTE=Lizard]
[list]
[li]The Indians are not “upstarts,” they tied for the best record in the majors. So you can stop acting as if they’re lucky to be here.[/li]
[/QUOTE]

Well, they are upstarts in that they have a payroll of 61 mil. compared to 143 mil of the Red Sox. Even though I am a Red Sox fan I think this is great.

25

[QUOTE=CoG888]
I disagree. You can clearly see a downward trend in the ratings since the strike in 94, except for a few spikes like in 2003, 2001, and 1999. Guess who played in those series?
[/QUOTE]

Yes, the Yankees played in all of those serieses. But the spikes are not the spikes of major must see television events. While the ratings would have been slightly lower without the Yankees, they wouldn’t be in the disaster range. Baseball is just too popular with too many people.

I also contend that the strike had little to do with the lower ratings. I think it had much more to do with the increasing cable options. Cable TV exploded after 1994 and it’s moronic that sportswriters always ignore that.

26

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
The funny thing is that World Series ratings have been roughly the same for the whole decade, regardless of who’s playing.

[/QUOTE]

I don’t think the numbers in your link match the description you give here.

1999 - YANKEES v. Braves - 16.0
2000 - YANKEES v. Mets - 12.4
2001 - Yankees v. DIAMONDBACKS - 15.7
2002 - ANGELS v. Giants - 11.9
2003 - Yankees v. MARLINS - 13.9
2004 - RED SOX v. Cardinals - 15.8
2005 - WHITE SOX v. Astros - 11.1
2006 - Tigers v. CARDINALS - 10.1

Some observations:

1. The three highest ratings earned by World Series matchups in this period featured either the Yankees or the Red Sox. The three lowest rated series featured neither of those teams.

2. The mean rating of series featuring the Yankees was 14.5. The mean rating of all other series was 12.2. The ratings of the three series containing two teams of less than national prominence were 11.9, 11.1, and 10.1.

3. Interestingly, the one time a Yankees series pulled less than a 13.0 was when they played the Mets in 2000.

What does this suggest? That your observation is dead wrong. Ratings do vary according to who is playing. When relatively low-profile teams are on both sides, ratings are dismal. However, when relatively high profile teams are on both sides, ratings are similarly poor.

This implies to me that from a ratings standpoint, the absolute best scenario for MLB is to have a high profile team (like the Yankees, Red Sox, or Mets, among others) play against a low profile team. The high-profile team brings in its national following, and brings in casual fans who have only heard of five teams in their lives. But it also brings in those who want to root for the low-profile team, because they hate the high-profile team.

White Sox v. Astros didn’t sell because the viewers there were fans of the two teams, and really hard core fans who will watch anything baseball. Yankees v. Diamondbacks sold because you had Yankee fans, Diamondbacks fans, casual fans who really only know the Yankees, AND all the people in cities across the country who just wanted to see the Yankees lose.

Yankees v. Mets still drew reasonably well because both teams have large fanbases and appeal to very casual fans, but not as well as Yankees v. Diamondbacks because the people who would tune in just to root against the Yankees for being the Yankees are by and large people who root against the Mets for being the Mets.

So I guess Boston v. Colorado would be optimal from a network standpoint. Given the national prominence of the Red Sox, the team’s large native fanbase, the people-rooting-against-the-big-bad-famous-team factor, and the good story that is the 2007 Rockies, this could match 2001 and 2004, ratings-wise.

27

What annoys me in this vein is when there’s a chance of a Canadian-American matchup in the Stanley Cup finals, the broadcasters here always lament that that means poor ratings, especially if the American team is from a small market. They never consider that it means great ratings in Canada.

Ed

28

[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
What does this suggest? That your observation is dead wrong. Ratings do vary according to who is playing. When relatively low-profile teams are on both sides, ratings are dismal. However, when relatively high profile teams are on both sides, ratings are similarly poor.
[/QUOTE]

Of course the teams playing matter, but they don’t matter to influence the ratings in any meaningful way.

Here are the current top 10 shows of the new TV season and their ratings:

  1. CSI 13.7
  2. DANCING WITH THE STARS - 13.2
  3. GREY’S ANATOMY - 13.1
  4. DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES - 11.9
  5. HOUSE - 10.9
  6. DANCING WITH STARS RESULT - 10.6
  7. NBC SUNDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL - 10.3
  8. CSI: MIAMI - 10.0
  9. NCIS - 10.0
  10. WITHOUT A TRACE - 9.8

As you can see, every World Series (even the ones with piss poor ratings) would rank no lower than number 8 out of every television show on the air. If you’re going to argue that a World Series gets bad numbers, it shouldn’t be able to outrank every show on TV.

29

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
Of course the teams playing matter, but they don’t matter to influence the ratings in any meaningful way.

Here are the current top 10 shows of the new TV season and their ratings:

  1. CSI 13.7
  2. DANCING WITH THE STARS - 13.2
  3. GREY’S ANATOMY - 13.1
  4. DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES - 11.9
  5. HOUSE - 10.9
  6. DANCING WITH STARS RESULT - 10.6
  7. NBC SUNDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL - 10.3
  8. CSI: MIAMI - 10.0
  9. NCIS - 10.0
  10. WITHOUT A TRACE - 9.8

As you can see, every World Series (even the ones with piss poor ratings) would rank no lower than number 8 out of every television show on the air. If you’re going to argue that a World Series gets bad numbers, it shouldn’t be able to outrank every show on TV.
[/QUOTE]

The World Series, being at most 7 games once a year, should always get better ratings than serial programming. That it doesn’t is indicative of the support of the teams playing and the state of baseball in general. There’s a reason the Super Bowl gets the highest ratings/share every single year. It’s the comparative rarity of the event and the extraordinary popularity of football.

Frankly, if I were running things at MLB’s executive offices I’d be scared shitless over those numbers. Those are just this side of horrible given the nature of the event and the historical significance of the World Series.

30

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
Of course the teams playing matter, but they don’t matter to influence the ratings in any meaningful way.

Here are the current top 10 shows of the new TV season and their ratings:

  1. CSI 13.7
  2. DANCING WITH THE STARS - 13.2
  3. GREY’S ANATOMY - 13.1
  4. DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES - 11.9
  5. HOUSE - 10.9
  6. DANCING WITH STARS RESULT - 10.6
  7. NBC SUNDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL - 10.3
  8. CSI: MIAMI - 10.0
  9. NCIS - 10.0
  10. WITHOUT A TRACE - 9.8

As you can see, every World Series (even the ones with piss poor ratings) would rank no lower than number 8 out of every television show on the air. If you’re going to argue that a World Series gets bad numbers, it shouldn’t be able to outrank every show on TV.
[/QUOTE]

Well, no, it doesn’t work like that. All of those shows are weekly shows; their advertising revenue (and, admittedly, their weekly nut) is additive. The World Series is a single event (albeit one spread over seven nights), for which Fox pays a crapload of money and therefore expects a certain level of performance. The level of performance it expects is tied to the amount paid to get the rights to air it - it’s not strictly relative. A Super Bowl that managed a rating of 33.1 would still blow any weekly show out of the water by a factor of three, but it would also be a stupendous disappointment, one that would cost people their jobs.

The difference between a 15.8 and an 11.1 is not negligible - it’s something on the order of 5 million viewers, times up to seven nights. Advertisers will pay a significant premium for those extra 35 million pairs of eyes, if they anticipate good ratings - a premium large enough to make a difference in the overall profitability of the deal. If ratings consistently hang at 11.1 vs. 15.8, advertisers will pay less, which is bad for the network.

31

[QUOTE=Lizard]
Yeah, it’s amazing how Michigan kept getting its games covered, even after they were 0-2, and had been alternately beaten by a I-AA team, and then blown out by Oregon. Same with Notre Dame. How many games in a row would, say Louisiana Tech have to WIN before they’d ever show up on Sportscenter? Notre Dame, even at 0-5, still made the broadcast.
[/QUOTE]

The thing about Notre Dame is that although a lot of people love them, a lot of folks hate them just as much. That means pretty good ratings I bet.

No one really hates La Tech, that I know of.

32

This is one of the fundamental differences between baseball and football that ad execs just don’t want to acknowledge.

If you have even halfway decent cable service you will be able to choose from at least 500 different baseball games in just the regular season. Then there’s the two rounds of playoffs and then the World Series. It’s baseball burnout for a lot of people. And then the Series itself can go anywhere from 4 to 7 games.

For all intensive purposes, baseball is a serial program.

Compare that with football, where the average person has a choice of (at max) 68 regular season games and then another 10 playoff games. Then they get the Super Bowl, which is one game only.

Football is much more limited and thus gets higher ratings.

33

[QUOTE=storyteller0910]

Yankees v. Mets still drew reasonably well because both teams have large fanbases and appeal to very casual fans, but not as well as Yankees v. Diamondbacks because the people who would tune in just to root against the Yankees for being the Yankees are by and large people who root against the Mets for being the Mets.
[/QUOTE]

I think the ratings for the Yankees-Mets were low-ish is because both teams are in the same market.

34

[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
2001 - Yankees v. DIAMONDBACKS - 15.7

[/QUOTE]
To be fair, this number is crazy skewed, as it was the post 9/11, “everyone is a New Yorker” World Series that was a nail biter down to Game 7.

Yes, I was there when the Diamondbacks won at Bank One Ballpark.

No, I barely care about baseball and certainly don’t as of Monday night!

35

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]

For all intensive purposes, baseball is a serial program.

[/QUOTE]

Ouch.

I agree with your arguments, but you lost me with that one.

For all intents and purposes…

36

[QUOTE=JohnT]
I, for one, look forward to the USF vs. Hawaii BCS championship game.

Please.
[/QUOTE]

Go 'Bows!

(I still call them Rainbow Warriors, even though our coach changed it to just “Warriors”).

In all seriousness, I’d like UH to go unbeaten and represent like Boise did last year; we do not belong in a BCS title game.

And I say that as a season-ticket holding fan; who saw our AD screw up our schedule to include 2 I-AA teams.

37

[QUOTE=HubZilla]
Go 'Bows!

(I still call them Rainbow Warriors, even though our coach changed it to just “Warriors”).

In all seriousness, I’d like UH to go unbeaten and represent like Boise did last year; we do not belong in a BCS title game.

And I say that as a season-ticket holding fan; who saw our AD screw up our schedule to include 2 I-AA teams.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed; I love UH and I think Brennan and Bess are probably the two best skill position players they’ve ever had, but you don’t want Hawaii in the National Championship game. OSU, LSU or OU would clean the rainbow clock. Better to go 12-0 and to one of the other BCS bowls, where they might well tag a team like Boston College or Oregon.

38

Obviously the problem is Dancing with the Stars needs the Yankees in order to beat CSI.

39

[QUOTE=T_SQUARE]
The thing about Notre Dame is that although a lot of people love them, a lot of folks hate them just as much. That means pretty good ratings I bet.
[/QUOTE]

But that’s circular logic; people hate ND for the same thing that I mention. I know that’s why I hate them. How many games pitting an 0-5 team versus a 2-3 team get reported, or even broadcast? I mean, give me a fucking break!

I think the root of the issues that everyone is discusing in this thread is the natural tension between what makes good business and what makes great sports. Predictability makes for great business–the same teams winning 80 percent of the time, every time. But that makes for terrible sports. Great sports are when anything can happen, and every fan can have some legitimate hope. They said “parity” hit the NFL because something like six different teams won the Super Bowl before the Patriots repeated. Parity my ass. It was great to see, hear, and read all the new angles to the event that surfaced with every new team that made it there. There was something new every time. After the Patriots made their third Super Bowl, did I really need to read ANOTHER story about Tom Brady, or Tedy Bruschi, or Mike Vrabel?

I think this is a good yardstick to evaluate sportswriters on. If they moan about “parity” as if it were bad thing, that tells you they value predictability more than true competition, probably because it’s a lot easier to recycle the same old shit when the same teams are in the running every year.

40

[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Frankly, if I were running things at MLB’s executive offices I’d be scared shitless over those numbers. Those are just this side of horrible given the nature of the event and the historical significance of the World Series.
[/QUOTE]
Well, maybe the people in charge of programming ought to start thinking of ways to appeal to more viewers, because i think it’s about more than just which teams are appearing.

Game 2 of the Cleveland/Boston series, on Saturday night, would have finished well after midnight even if they hadn’t needed extra innings. And Monday night’s game, a low-scoring affair (4-2) in which only 10 runners were left on base by both teams combined, still managed to take three and a half hours. I know Fox spends lot of money for the playoffs, but i tune in to watch baseball, not ads.

I was reading in the 2007 edition of Baseball Prospectus that part of Fox’s most recent deal with MLB allows for longer breaks between half-innings in the postseason so that Fox can run more ads. My Google-fu hasn’t allowed me to find anything about this deal online, and i’d be interested to know whether (and by how much) the between-half-inning breaks are longer this year than they have been in the past. I’ll generally watch postseason games no matter who’s playing, but if there’s anything likely to drive even a keen follower like me away, it’s that sort of shit.

You might be right that some sports commentators are told to shill for big market teams, but that strikes me as rather counterproductive. Given that the commentators can’t actually determine who wins the games, you’d think they might try to create more hype around the small market teams. Personally, while it’s fun to see the Yankees and the Red Sox lose, i’m just as happy for that to happen in the DS or the CS. I would have watched most of the World series no matter who was playing, but if it’s a Cleveland/Colorado series i’ll be more committed to staying glued to the set for every single pitch, because seeing either of those teams win it all would be new and exciting.

As for the OP, i also get annoyed with sport writers who seem more concerned about television ratings than about the actual baseball. Sure, TV deals and ratings are important to the sport, but maybe during the actual playoffs we could focus on the actual game and on the actual teams that are playing.