Baseball Toaster was unplugged on February 4, 2009.
scott@scottlongonline.com
I appear on local sports radio on a regular basis and I try to prepare some specific material for each market. One thing I've noticed over the past couple of years is how little baseball is discussed. Outside of strong traditional baseball towns like New York, Boston, St. Louis and Cincinnati, very rarely is MLB the topic, unless the steroids thing is being discussed or the playoffs are happening. Nationally, it is even more this way, as ESPN and Fox Sports radio are driven around the NFL. Their market research shows that outside of NCAA tourney time, when most or their listeners have hoops pools which create a vested interest, football is what drives callers. This is why ESPN radio has former player Mike Golic doing the morning show, Colin "All I Really Like to Talk about is Gridiron" Cowherd following him, and Kirk Herbstreit and Mike Tirico doing afternoons. Fox radio is just as NFL-centric, with football savant Steve Czaban hosting the morninng show and fomer players James Washington and Bryan Cox co-hosting programs later in the day. While MLB is experiencing record attendance, you would hardly know it if you turned on sports radio or cable sports network.
I think the NFL Network's existence has caused the league to find events to promote itself 365 days a year, as last week's Cattle auction, I mean NFL Combine proved. In the past, I have been ripped at the Juice Blog for discussing how certain things happening, like last year's NL Championship, were bad for MLB's growth, but I am concerned that the game is losing its National fanbase. With the increasing popularity of sports like NASCAR and Mixed Martial Arts, baseball is losing traction with younger generations.. Baseball purists like Bob Costas have ripped Inter-league play and the Wild Card playoff teams, but these things have helped create more interest in the game. I can respect the basis for being a traditionalist, but not using forward-thinking is the reason that Costas has spent the past decade covering the NFL, the NBA, and the Olympics, and has had no involvement with MLB. There is very little time devoted for baseball on network television.
Personally, I wouldn't need anything to change in baseball, as I love the game just the way it is...but I grew up in a generation where baseball was as popular, if not more than football. The marketing of the game by NFL commissioner Pete Rozelle started the ball rolling for the incredible growth of professional football, while at the same time, MLB had nitwits like Bowie Kuhn running its game. I'm not a major fan of Bud Selig, but most of the changes in the game that have happened during his tenure have been positive. I don't see where any new revenue growth from the game can come, though, unless the new MLB Network connects and brings new interest in the sport. Selig has kept his job by exploiting every revenue source possible, even if it wasn't good for the long-term success of the game. With the advent of MLB Network, this would have been a great time for a new commissioner to come in. Someone with a sports marketing background who would be a positive face for MLB, instead of the Droopy Dog persona of Selig. I have to believe that if the baseball owners would have hired Roger Goodell a few years back, their sport would be making more strides in gaining traction on the national sports landscape.
When the MLB Network kicks off in 2009, it will be a chance for MLB to redefine itself and bring in new fans. Unlike the NFL, which can be heavy-handed in the way it deals with the cable networks because of its immense popularity and the power of its 16 game schedule, MLB was smart to partner with the cable and satellite companies to get in as many homes as possible. The sport needs to steal some of the great talent at NFL Films to put together clip packages that can show baseball in a compelling way. It needs to hire some dynamic personalities who are allowed to take on the players and owners, as there are too many choices out there on the cable/satellite landscape to have a Network of company men. NBA commissioner David Stern has been smart in not trying to oust a ticking time bomb like outspoken Charles Barkley from TNT and even has torch thrower Peter Vescey on the league's own NBA TV. MLB needs to follow his example. A network filled with Cal Ripken-types might seem initially like a good marketing plan, but it won't hold viewers. I would like to see guys like David Wells and Curt Schilling give their takes on a regular basis. I'm not holding my breath, though, as no ownership group in sports has been more thin-skinned than baseball owners. If MLB wants to connect itself to younger generations, it's new network must be willing to embrace controversy. Otherwise, it will be just another MLB platform that narrowcasts itself to a rabid, but small group of fanatics that I am a part of. I want to see the game I love be something my son can be as excited about as I am.
Baseball has its players spread out over a wider area so it's hard to figure out just what the camera should focus on.
Also, NFL Films is a nice medium for analyzing Xs and Os for the people who want it.
Baseball on TV often fails to present one of the most crucial parts of the game, i.e., the positioning of the fielders. Not many people appreciate just where a shortstop is standing or where the right fielder is playing.
But I think the Baseball Network will have an advantage over the NFL Network in that it has so much more inventory to work with. 15 games a day for much of the week gives people a lot to talk about. Even if there are going to be about 18 Pittsburgh-Houston games in a season.
This week in baseball was just a highlight clips presentation, where nfl films prented a story. Their documentary series on the super bowl champs, america's game, needs to be used as an example. It is time to make the game more accessible. I think there is a place for a more sabermetrical approach on 24 hour network....baseballprospetus should get a show, but it is more important to grow the personalities of the game. This singular focus of the media on steroids in the sport needs to have better perspective. The lack of a decent marketing scheme for the game has not helped.
Perhaps the Baseball Network will have guys working for it who actually like baseball unlike Fox, which just seems to tolerate it as a tool to promote "House."
The best hitter and the best pitcher of the past 2 decades are being considered criminals, so that is not helping MLB's image. Some serious PR and marketing efforts need to be made, because while the game attendance is good, the TV ratings and overall growth of the game, especially to younger generations is falling flat.
Regardless of the talk radio baromoeter, I don't think baseball is losing ground in the media anyway...it's just that the nature of the media is changing, and it is doing so to MLB's advantage.
Ironically, what has always fueled the NFL's economic superiority has been it's limited schedule, which provided more concentrated ratings and therefore higher rights fees. Well, with media moving from an network driven to an internet driven marketplace, MLB looks as if it will have the last laugh. With cable and even more so the internet, content is king and no sport has more than baseball. That's why MLB was able to force the cable company's to include its channel on basic, while the NFL still can't get off pay tier. When the MLB channel launches, it will be the biggest new channel launch in cable history.
The internet, however, is where MLB will leave the NFL in the dust. MLBAM is already the gold standard for sports-related online content, and many financial analysts have pegged its market value at several billion dollars.
MLB has almost caught up to the NFL in terms of revenue, and I predict it will be far ahead within the next 5 years or so. In other words, MLB is still the national pasttime and remains the one sport we care most about (one of the big reasons why steroids in baseball is such a big topic, while the NFL gets off scott free).
MLB always seemed to have a far more robust hot stove league than NFL with the postseason awards, GM meetings, free agency, etc. Until a few years ago, the ONLY NFL talk between February and July was the centered around the draft (and that was the only time people actually brought up the combine - 6 weeks after the fact). But draft talk only lasted a week or two and the rest of the offseason was basically dead.
I think MLB has done too many things for the short-term, while not focusing on the long-term.
In Indy, the Reds used to be talked about quite a bit, but since their decline and the rise of the Colts, they are almost never discussed.
I agree with you that MLB is not flourishing, despite the attendance records. Well, it's flourishing and making tons of money, but it's clearly becoming the third bananna in the pecking order of national pasttimes.
Basketball is a non entity in these parts since Jordan retired.
In my little town of 12-13,000 people there are at least 50 youth league teams that play locally and at least half a dozen competitive summer league squads.
I'm not sure that the amount of talk devoted to MLB on talk radio is much of an indicator of how much of the youth market cares for the sports. It seems like baseball is more popular than ever, but that may just be because I live on the mason/dixon line of the Card-Cub 'nations'.
The only real evidence that would support your claim are the generic Harris polls that come out each year (although baseball is trending back up in even those). I don't put much weight in those anyway because the poll doesn't seek out a population of sports fan. Instead, it is basically asking the general population what they think is the most popular sport. Judging by the way networks pump up football (for obviosu reasons), it isn't hard to see why many would perceive the NFL is more popular.
Whether its the growing attendance, revenues, online proliferation for even more rabid sentiment over PEDs, I think there are plenty of signs that show why baseball is still at the forefront of national consciousness. Also, if you were to tell the American public that they couldn't place a wager on the NFL, I have a very strong feeling that sport would recede.
9 I think it probably does skew your viewpoint because as a hardcore baseball fan, I would never listen to a national talk show. Baseball is local and fans want to hear about their teams from hosts who know them expertly. I have no interest in listening to an ESPN-type national program that might mention my team for only a few minutes and exhibit a level of knowledge well below mine. By defining a playing field that SHOULD favor the NFL, you are jumping to an erroneous conclusion.
Also, judging by the relative acheivements of the Reds and Colts, I would HOPE that the Colts are getting more play in Indianapolis.
I have noticed how little baseball content makes it to ESPN Radio, et al., and it's unfortunate. The best part of DP's old show was that Dibble was on there, which meant that they talked about baseball a lot.
I think more can be done at the minor league level. MLB teams should pump more money into AA and AAA stadia and marketing. Put these teams in growing cities when possible, and put them downtown (i.e., take advantage of the re-gentrification of downtowns in cities like Birmingham, Charlotte, etc.--the model for this would be Chattanooga). Make the parks beautiful, classy.
As for ESPN radio having baseball content, well, again, I don't think baseballs turn to ESPN on the radio in the first place (which could be why it doesn't have baseball content). When I want to hear about the Yankees, I turn to WFAN, which has local hosts and local fans. I don't care what Dan Patrick thinks, nor his nationwide audience. That's just how baseball is...it's a local game.
I know this may be hard for you to grasp, but there actually is a world beyond NYC.
As for not living in the market of your team, well, then that might require more of an effort. I am sure one can find local sports talk on the internet and over satellite radio.
Chris happens to live in one of the few smaller city areas that baseball rules. I can't even think of a place in the Midwest or South that has such a strong baseball following as Springfield, IL does. Being such a mix of Cubs/Cardinals fans creates a college football type rivalry for the city. Kind of a rare example. I'm not sure if high school basketball isn't the 3rd most popular sport behind MLB and the NFL in the Springfield area.
The advent of the combine is just another example of how the NFL eats MLB's lunch, as they make their sport a year round focus. Only the Yankees have been able to bring a year-round baseball focus to the general sports fan. Really, if you live in New York or Boston and you don't visit the rest of the country, you really have no understanding of what I'm talking about. There is no sarcasm involved here, it has to do with being outside the Northeast corridor.
Jgpyke and I see eye to eye on his point listed above.
"One thing you've been saying for years, Scott, and do so again here is that MLB needs to market personalities more. And that could start at the top with a young commish, a Theo Epstein type with new ideas, a marketing whiz. Next, the owners need to let Mark Cuban buy the Cubs. His ascension to MLB owner would change the entire league in many, many ways."
Exactly what is needed. And the type of thing that the mostly old boys club which is MLB ownership would fight against.
Exactly what is needed. And the type of thing that the mostly old boys club which is MLB ownership would fight against.*
Couldn't agree more, especially the Cuban thing...that would be interesting.
Scott, High School basketball would probably be fourth (a close fourth)...high school football has gotten crazy around here. Again my little burg just south of the Capitol has a population of 12-13k, but the last three games versus our biggest rival from Springfield at our place has had attendance figures of 5 to 7 thousand at each game.
To your point though, I had at least ten people ask me about Fukadome on monday alone.
While I agree that in the South particularly, football is likely more popular than baseball, I am not sure why you and others keep dismissing the Northeast (NY, Boston, etc.), Midwest (Chicago, Cincy, St. Louis, etc.) and West (LA, SF, Seattle, etc.). Don't those areas count as well?
Again, however, I think by using talk radio as the barometer, you are making the argument on a battleground that should favor the NFL. It would almost be as if one came the conclusion that the entire country was far right conservative based simply on listening to political talk radio. While I think the country does lean right, simply tuning on the AM dial would give on the impression that Democrats and liberals do not even exist.
While I acknowledge that some of the small towns you have visited might talk more football than baseball, what I am challenging is the general conclusions you are drawing from that. Instead, I would point you toward MLB's growing attendance, revenues and online proliferation as reasons why the sport is not only healthy, but poised to become the most lucrative sports' business in the country. Also, I would point out that MLB rates far ahead of the NFL in terms of popularity among hispanics and asians. All you need to do is look at U.S. census projections to see why that bodes very well for MLB's future.
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.