Why is baseball so interesting?

[Tashtego]

https://tht.fangraphs.com/answer-him-this-why-baseball/

[NoOne]

watching it is about as exciting as watching golf, though. lots of standing around. playing the game in some fashion is fun. just like golf. i am an avid golfer, in spite of comparing golf spectating to watching grass grow.

only about 1/5th of people watch pro sports. he should understand he is a minority, and that person's feelings on the subject are the majority. no reason to be insecure about that fact. it's simply a fact.

it's not that popular in spite of all the hooplah and extortion of public money (i.e. money for stadiums that generate nothing for the city it is in, and that so few actually use).

nonetheless, 1/5th of ~200M+ adults is enough to make tons of cash, though.

he makes false arguments about 'continuity.' that just amounts personal bias. this game is nothing like it was 50 or 100 years ago. liking something more doesn'tmake it better than another hobby/sport/leisure, but it really brings out the fallacious reasoning.

also, the game isn't nearly as complicated as people make it seem. finite set of situations to understand various break-even analyses. it's probably the simplest of the pro sports, quantitatively speaking and not from personal preference. you typically have plenty of time to make decisions, and the well-prepared already have the answer before the opportunity to make the decision. in other sports, you have to think on your toes more often - players, if not coaches too.

baseball journalists aren't "journalists" by definition. they editorialize and at least in the detroit newspapers can't even proofread their articles. they are opiners that cater to the lowest common denominator basically the type of discourse you hear on a local call-in sports radio program. the average person reads at a middle school level.. can't expect much if you want to sell newspapers, have good tv ratings or many listeners.

sure, some have more capabilities than others, but they are few and far between, and still have to cater to simple folk that make up the mob. a few can actually call themselves professional writers, but the rest are just jugheads saying the same tropes about sports you hear every year.

seriously, the detroit free press and news basically just rotate the same stories 80% of the year as the previous year, lol. i've actualyl seen an article re-printed with a few names changed and very little else. it's flashbacks to catholic churches as a kid. i guess others couldn't remember the same exact pattern every year? for those without experience in that church, only the homily changes for the most part. maybe a few choices in readings change, but it's the same yearly cycle of readings and songs outside of that.

i couldn't read past, "So, in place of other sports, why baseball?"

the dude's reaction at the party is about is silly as his, fwiw. built up faux-sophistication about somethign arbitrary.. one who likes sports, and one who thinks they are boring, or at least baseball. i'm sure he has some hobby or interest that is equally boring. let's be honest, the pace of pro baseball is as slow as molasses. the guy crinkling his nose is the insufferable one, but no reason to let him get your goat.

[dbl4868]

Originally Posted by Tashtego

https://tht.fangraphs.com/answer-him-this-why-baseball/

Great article! I agree with every word of it. There’s nothing like watching baseball and following the day to day pennant chase.

[Dyzalot]

I thought this was a great insight that I hadn't really thought about before.

Look at it this way: In basketball, that last shot is going to LeBron.

In football, the final play is in Brady’s hands.

But in baseball? In baseball you have to bat in order. And that’s why journeyman Steve Pearce, and not superstar Mookie Betts, is the 2018 World Series MVP. That’s why Pat Borders, and not Robbie Alomar, remains the hero of the ’92 Jays. That’s why Luis Sojo — Luis Who-jo? — figures prominently in World Series lore.

And that’s why Bucky Dent, in Boston, is Bucky F***ing Dent.

Baseball makes monuments of the most unexpected moments, and even if football can answer with David Tyree’s miraculous Super Bowl catch, the gridiron cannot mandate, as the rules of baseball do, that he must be thrown to.

[yawgmoth]

Originally Posted by NoOne

it's not that popular in spite of all the hooplah and extortion of public money (i.e. money for stadiums that generate nothing for the city it is in, and that so few actually use).

Speaking of editorializing... Where are your getting that publicly funded stadiums generate nothing for the city? In Baltimore, the stadium was a major part of the Inner Harbor revitalization plan in the late 80s and early 90s. When I travel for business I always try to take in a ballgame. That usually involves a host of other activities (parking, dinner at a nice restaurant) that involve paying sales tax. Last I checked that generates income for the city. Even if I am the only person partaking in these activities, which based on the packed restaurants and bars I am not, it is generating something. Not to mention jobs for the ushers, concession workers, parking attendants, restaurant workers, etc.


Worse than editorializing is using generalities to try and drive home an off topic point.

[BirdWatcher]

Originally Posted by yawgmoth

Speaking of editorializing... Where are your getting that publicly funded stadiums generate nothing for the city? In Baltimore, the stadium was a major part of the Inner Harbor revitalization plan in the late 80s and early 90s. When I travel for business I always try to take in a ballgame. That usually involves a host of other activities (parking, dinner at a nice restaurant) that involve paying sales tax. Last I checked that generates income for the city. Even if I am the only person partaking in these activities, which based on the packed restaurants and bars I am not, it is generating something. Not to mention jobs for the ushers, concession workers, parking attendants, restaurant workers, etc.


Worse than editorializing is using generalities to try and drive home an off topic point.

Not to take a stance on the broader question here, but it is certainly true also in Denver that the Lower Downtown (LoDo) area of Denver was completely revitalized around the construction of Coors Field. I did not live in Denver during the lowest of lows for this part of town (I understand it was a bit post-apocalyptic) but I have heard many stories from folks who lived here before me and I have seen with my own eyes all of the development (for good or bad) that has grown up around the ballpark. It has certainly proven to be an economic driver. (Granted, the economy is very good in Denver for a multitude of reasons and I don't mean to suggest that Coors Field created all of the economic growth, but for at least a part of the city it was an early, and key, stimulator of growth. You might say that Coors Field, like a good lead-off hitter, set the table for future run production.)

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by yawgmoth

Speaking of editorializing... Where are your getting that publicly funded stadiums generate nothing for the city? In Baltimore, the stadium was a major part of the Inner Harbor revitalization plan in the late 80s and early 90s. When I travel for business I always try to take in a ballgame. That usually involves a host of other activities (parking, dinner at a nice restaurant) that involve paying sales tax. Last I checked that generates income for the city. Even if I am the only person partaking in these activities, which based on the packed restaurants and bars I am not, it is generating something. Not to mention jobs for the ushers, concession workers, parking attendants, restaurant workers, etc.


Worse than editorializing is using generalities to try and drive home an off topic point.

Sorry but you are wrong.

But all of us are getting to do it whether we want to or not. Bloomberg Business reported in 2012, "Over the life of the $17 billion of exempt debt issued to build stadiums since 1986, the last of which matures in 2047, taxpayer subsidies to bondholders will total $4 billion."

State and city bonds were originally intended to finance projects like roads, bridges, schools and other projects that serve the public. But they have been expanded to borrow money for all sorts of projects that serve to enrich private corporations.

The expense is always justified as an ingenious way to create jobs and prosperity. But economists Dennis Coates and Brad Humphreys surveyed the research on the impact of teams and stadiums on local economies and found "no substantial evidence of increased jobs, income or tax revenues."

Team owners, however, can always find some city or state willing to fleece taxpayers in the fallacious hope that prosperity will follow. It's a play fake that never fails.

https://reason.com/2015/03/12/sports...yers-for-a-lo/

Subsidizing sports stadiums is a net negative for the taxpayer. It is also corporate welfare going to the richest people in America which makes it immoral as well.

[Eric]

Then there's this classic comparison with Football...
Baseball vs FootbalI

[Mariner and Giants Fan]

Originally Posted by NoOne

watching it is about as exciting as watching golf, though. lots of standing around. playing the game in some fashion is fun. just like golf. i am an avid golfer, in spite of comparing golf spectating to watching grass grow.

only about 1/5th of people watch pro sports. he should understand he is a minority, and that person's feelings on the subject are the majority. no reason to be insecure about that fact. it's simply a fact.

Maybe you might wanna check your "facts" about that 1/5th of people!
"Seventy-two percent of 18- to 29-year-olds are sports fans. This compares with 64% of 30- to 49-year-olds, and 58% of those aged 50 and older."

This come from Gallup News. Where does your 20% come from?

You do not seem like any baseball fan that I have ever met, to say it is like watching golf or not that complicated or that the writer doesn't know this or that. Did you just have a bad day and decide to take it out on the author of this article?
I could not disagree with you more on what baseball is and the article this author wrote. Different strokes I suppose.

[yawgmoth]

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

Sorry but you are wrong.



https://reason.com/2015/03/12/sports...yers-for-a-lo/

Subsidizing sports stadiums is a net negative for the taxpayer. It is also corporate welfare going to the richest people in America which makes it immoral as well.

My point wasn't that it is a good use of taxpayer money. My point is that it is false that there is zero benefit to the city. Sure the money could be used for better things but so could how I use my personal finances.

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by yawgmoth

My point wasn't that it is a good use of taxpayer money. My point is that it is false that there is zero benefit to the city. Sure the money could be used for better things but so could how I use my personal finances.

It has zero net benefit. Of course it benefits a small minority of the people in that city and area but at the expense of everyone else. They are bad economic deals for cities and a very immoral use of taxpayer money to give it to rich people.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by yawgmoth

Speaking of editorializing... Where are your getting that publicly funded stadiums generate nothing for the city? In Baltimore, the stadium was a major part of the Inner Harbor revitalization plan in the late 80s and early 90s. When I travel for business I always try to take in a ballgame. That usually involves a host of other activities (parking, dinner at a nice restaurant) that involve paying sales tax. Last I checked that generates income for the city. Even if I am the only person partaking in these activities, which based on the packed restaurants and bars I am not, it is generating something. Not to mention jobs for the ushers, concession workers, parking attendants, restaurant workers, etc.


Worse than editorializing is using generalities to try and drive home an off topic point.

there are economic studies that prove what i say. due to tax breaks and public money being spent, it is easily a net negative on the cities.

it also raises costs without increased revenues -- i.e. increased need for police protection, increases water/sewage cots, increased cost on their infrastructure with most vehicles commuting form outside the city.. .the list goes on and on...

it's a boon to the business owners... who make up a very very small fraction of the population.

sales tax disproportionately hurts people with less income, too. so, it's further shifting burden to people that can least afford it, lol. plus, this is a guess, but i doubt state sales taxes go directly to the local cities. more likely goes into general budget and then alotted by the state? no guarantee that gets farily distributed to the cities that likely have greater contribution.

those percentages are based on whether someone calls themselves a sports fan... not if they spectate or actualy partake in watching them in any way.

even if i'm wrong, you'd have to look at each individual sport, not in total, too.

why is baseball simple? it's stop-and-start with realyl simple action between, so there's no reason not to understand all "24" contexts that are possible and have a plung-n-play strategy for the variables for each opponent when you face them with up-to-date relative information.

sayint it is more or less complicated compared to other sports is an argument not worth having. it's more about personal feelings and likes/dislikes than anything else. whatever is more familiar or recent in memory will be the favorite.

also, i am not pawning myself off as a "journalist" so i can opine to my heart's content becuase it's not my job to be unbiased.

[Boomcoach]

Originally Posted by Mariner and Giants Fan

Maybe you might wanna check your "facts" about that 1/5th of people!
"Seventy-two percent of 18- to 29-year-olds are sports fans. This compares with 64% of 30- to 49-year-olds, and 58% of those aged 50 and older."

This come from Gallup News. Where does your 20% come from?

You do not seem like any baseball fan that I have ever met, to say it is like watching golf or not that complicated or that the writer doesn't know this or that. Did you just have a bad day and decide to take it out on the author of this article?
I could not disagree with you more on what baseball is and the article this author wrote. Different strokes I suppose.

I am not going to try and defend the poster's 20% number, but I will have to agree that, for me, watching baseball is not very exciting. I have always loved it on radio or at the park, but feel pretty meh about it on TV.


I turn on my Reds games while we are doing other things in the house, but rarely sit and watch it. For us it functions much like radio with video replay. My wife and I will watch an inning then switch to something else and bounce back periodically to check. To be fair, I do the same thing with football. Both are 3+ hour broadcasts with about 15 minutes of game action.


I am certainly a baseball fan, currently loving the Jesse Winker vs the Mets fans sideshow, get to several games a year, major and minor league, but watching baseball is not, for me, an exciting thing.

[andyhdz]

Except for the die hards I think most of us are just like you. Having the game on TV is a good background thing while you do other things but nothing beats being out at the ballpark. For football it's the opposite for me. Of course playoff baseball is a whole other animal especially if your team is in it.

[dbqs]

Yep, at least in the US, nothing better than going to a ballpark on a nice day for a game. Relaxing and fun. At least for most MLB stadiums/teams (and MiLB! always an underrated good time.)

Basketball and hockey are fun live too but arenas never have quite the same ambiance. Football is just awful to go to a stadium for in my limited experience.

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by dbqs

Football is just awful to go to a stadium for in my limited experience.

I'm a die hard baseball fan and there's nothing like being at Fenway on a warm afternoon to watch my Red Sox. However, I have to admit that after living near KC for a few years and going to watch the Chiefs several times at Arrowhead, that place is electric. I have never heard anything louder in my life that was purely produced by human voices than what I heard the day Dante Hall made that miraculous punt return where he ran back and forth a couple of times near his own endzone before breaking free and sprinting for a late, go ahead touchdown.

Here's a taste...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4P6z_DTHf8