Wow

Bill needs to learn the difference in knowledge in wisdom. His knowledge is correct, but it wasn't wise to say it.
 
He's not wrong. Look at college football. Wildly popular even though players can only play 4 years and leave when they're at their best.
 
Given how remarkably anonymous Mike Trout is amongst the general populace, i can’t say I disagree at all.
 
striker42 said:
He's not wrong. Look at college football. Wildly popular even though players can only play 4 years and leave when they're at their best.
Click to expand...

He is wrong. When the quality of the product diminishes, so does interest. That's pretty much marketing 101.
 
Carp said:
He is wrong. When the quality of the product diminishes, so does interest. That's pretty much marketing 101.
Click to expand...

Is he wrong...let's just imagine that all the current MLB players retired and basically everyone below them move up a level. Would the quality of the product really diminish that much? You would still have your stars, your controversial players, your professionals, etc. They would just have different names on their back.
 
Orphan Black said:
Is he wrong...let's just imagine that all the current MLB players retired and basically everyone below them move up a level. Would the quality of the product really diminish that much? You would still have your stars, your controversial players, your professionals, etc. They would just have different names on their back.
Click to expand...

Defense would.

We've seen what happens when a league employs entire rosters of players not good enough to cut it in the major sports leagues. The XFL is a prime example. The product was garbage.

Having said that, I think baseball would likely be different. Defense would take a hit, since it requires great athleticism and instincts (albeit less so now with advanced positioning). But, batter vs. pitcher probably wouldn't produce a noticeable difference in terms of results, due to it being less about athleticism and more about skill vs skill. If pitchers with low velocity and below-average stuff pitched to below average hitters, the numbers would probably end up being the same.

I'd rather not find out though.
 
striker42 said:
The Falcons play far better football than UGA. However, which team is more popular in Georgia?
Click to expand...

Georgia football has been around longer than the Falcons and has had a steady following for nearly a century. You're comparing apples to oranges.
 
Carp said:
Georgia football has been around longer than the Falcons and has had a steady following for nearly a century. You're comparing apples to oranges.
Click to expand...

Just pointing out it's not necessarily about the highest quality play. It's, as you described, about loyalty. I'm a Braves fam regardless of the players.
 
We barely drew 2 million fans the years we stunk. In 80's it was even worse. And even teams like the Phillies and Reds who are in "baseball towns" are not immune, as they've been bottom of the leagueb in attendance during their down years too. People simply do not like watching a low quality product.
 
Carp said:
We barely drew 2 million fans the years we stunk. In 80's it was even worse. And even teams like the Phillies and Reds who are in "baseball towns" are not immune, as they've been bottom of the leagueb in attendance during their down years too. People simply do not like watching a low quality product.
Click to expand...

They were losers. That’s not the argument here.
 
Carp said:
We barely drew 2 million fans the years we stunk. In 80's it was even worse. And even teams like the Phillies and Reds who are in "baseball towns" are not immune, as they've been bottom of the leagueb in attendance during their down years too. People simply do not like watching a low quality product.
Click to expand...

I think his argument is that if you remove all current players and replace them with all new players, new stars relative to the talent playing at that time would emerge. In another way, there would be players emerge who are 6+ WAR. In theory he's not wrong. But it's pretty insulting to baseball fans insinuating that they wouldn't notice the difference in terms of quality play, even though that might be right.

Think about it like this: If you could build a time machine, go back and grab Babe Ruth when he was in his prime, would he dominate modern baseball? I think the answer is probably not since the pitching and pitching strategy he faced then is nothing like what he would face today. The game evolves.

This was, however, a very dumb thing to put out publicly at a time when labor unrest is at its highest since the early 90's.
 
He isnt wrong. I always thought thet should have forced a salary cap and let players that didnt accept it walk. Call up minor leaguers to replace them. Eventually all those peotesting players would be gone anyway. This would have crushed the union. Some vets retire and all the rest come back when they go broke or realize they lost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top