From: jjd@TEAK.CRAY.COM (Jeff Drummond)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Baseball and Billions
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:43:48 GMT

Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

In article <1992Aug26.165903.22739@cis.ohio-state.edu> miked@pterodactyl.cis.ohio-state.edu (Michael Davey) writes:
>
>	Look, read my original post. I said that the owners have every right 
>to try and make money. I`m just arguing that The game itself as an abstract
>idea is not a business. However, in all practicality, major-league baseball
>must be treated like a busines in order to survive.  This does not mean that
>every decision regarding the rules of The Game should be made solely with
>the bottom line in mind, however. Lots of things can be done to increase
>attendence without adding a DH, for example. This implies there is something
>wrong with the game itself. Which there is not. If you start making changes
>based on how much money you can generate, the integrity of the game is 
>compromised, no matter how you slice it.

"...the game itself as an abstract idea..."

An interesting phrase--I'd like to know what that means.  In my view,
MLB is an entertainment business; like theatre, music, film, etc.
As a baseball fan, it's tempting to think of my entertainment as
special in some way; but I know Opera fans and classical music fans
and Ingmar Bergman fans who appear as dedicated to their entertainment
as I am to mine.

I think part of the attraction of baseball for some fans is its
continuity (at least in appearance if not in fact).

Continuity is undeniably important to people to some degree.  Some
people get upset when any rules change (be it the rules of baseball,
the tax code, or the language used in their church).  They are not
upset so much by the change itself, but by the fact that it changed
at all.  If you believe that a particular institution is perfect
(baseball, the IRS, or the Catholic church), then any change is
probably unsettling.

However, change is also human nature.  We are always trying to
improve things; and it's hard to improve something that you're not
allowed to change.  Even if you could convince me that a particular
human institution was perfect, I believe people would eventually
want to change it (for the sake of change).  But since few, if
any, human institutions are perfect, change is the only way to
improve things.  On the other hand, no institution can change
capriciously.

>	I guess if you are satisfied with the status quo no matter how
>from the ideal it is, then your correct. But there are a lot of fans of the
>game who are not satisfied with mediocrity and hope that managment could
>continue to get better with time.

The problem is:  what is better?  What is the ideal?  Some fans think
the game of baseball is getting better, others think it's getting worse.
If you measure the `perfection' of baseball by attendance, then it
would appear to be moving towards perfection (as opposed to away from
it).  The fans are voting with their feet (and dollars) by buying
tickets in record numbers.

Attendance is certainly governed by a lot of factors; some of which
are obviously beyond the control of the owners.  But I think it is
difficult to argue that the owners and fans are by-in-large unhappy
with the state of Major League Baseball as it exists today.

> 	Give me a break. NL fans enjoy the game just as much as AL fans.
>If you work in the marketing department for a major sport franchise and the 
>best idea you can come up with to increase interest is to change the rules
>of the game, you should seek another line of work.

I disagree.  _If_ you can increase fan interest by changing the rules,
you're a genius.  A rule change costs little, and if it increases your
attendance then the return on your `investment' is tremendous.  The
rules of baseball were not chiseled on the back of the Ten Commandments.
They are completely the product of the mind of man, and thus are subject
to error and revision.  The rules have been modified dozens of times in
the past century and will continue to be modified.

Total Baseball II has a section on all the rule changes ever made and
it's quite extensive and impressive.  Anyone who thinks that baseball
is a static institution, unchanged from generation to generation, should
take a peek at all those rule changes.  And that's just the rule changes;
there's also the changes in the stadia (turf, domes, pitching mounds,
etc.), the equipment (gloves, bats, balls), and even the way the game is
played (closers, platooning, etc.).

>	At this point I would not argue to lose the DH in the AL if the fans
>there like it so much. A dome in an area where the climate is inhospitable
>is a prudent decision. A dome in a beautiful climate (like Tampa) is stupid.
>The point is that the DH was introduced because the owners in the AL saw that
>atttendence was down and wanted to generate interest by fixing something that
>was not broken. Are you going to seriously argue that in the late sixties
>all the people in AL cities happened to find the game boring while all 
>the fans in the NL cities did not? Yeah right.

Well, the owners disagreed with your assessment.  They obviously felt
that low attendance was a problem, and they attempted to fix it.  Since
it was _their_ money on the line, I think they had every right to do
it.  And the fans had (and have) every right to stay home if they
didn't like that or any other change.

Also, if there are enough disgruntled fans, they can form their own
leagues and patronize their own brand of baseball.  It's a free
country.

>                                               Comparing the DH to the shot
>clock in the NBA is another inappropriate counterexample. Games in the NBA
>were boring for everybody because a team could sit on the ball and wind the 
>clock down, contrary to the spirit of the game as everyone agreed. It did
>not make sense to allow delaying tactics so they changed the rules.

Comparing the DH to the shot clock in the NBA is _very_ appropriate.
Delaying tactics (stalling when you have a lead) is a standard,
perfectly acceptable tactic in EVERY sport that has a clock (hockey,
football, soccer, water polo, etc. etc.).  If you've watched any of
these sports, you know it happens all the time.  It was (and still
is) a regular part of many basketball games as well.  The introduction
of the shot clock has only reduced the amount of time that a team can
stall, but the team that's ahead still stalls for as long as possible.

Whether you like the shot clock or not, it was a completely arbitrary
rule change done solely to increase fan interest (by increasing
scoring, decreasing boredom, etc.).  It's especially arbitrary
insofar as the amount of time that's put on the shot clock:  Is 60
seconds too long?  Is 10 seconds too short?  Ditto the 3-point shot.

Fan interest in basketball has certainly increased since the addition
of the shot clock, but it is difficult to say if the shot clock is,
in any way, the cause of the increase or a coincidental change.  The
exact same can be said of the DH.

>                                                                    Again,
>the DH was originally introduced by unimaginative owners to affect the bottom
>line, not because of the universally perceived flaw in the rules of the game,
>otherwise, the NL fans would have clamored for the DH in their league as well.

No fans (AL or NL) were clamoring for the DH; they were just staying
home.  It is the job of the entertainer to figure out what is
entertainment.

The DH was put in to increase scoring, and by all accounts it has done
exactly that.  The AL owners felt that increased scoring would lead to
increased fan interest and thus increased attendance (there is some
evidence to suggest that this has worked for other sports).  Attendance
_has_ increased, and the owners have to be happy about that.

Maybe attendance would have increased anyway, maybe not.  Maybe the DH
in the AL helped increase attendance in the NL, or maybe it was the
other way around.  The point is, if the owners want to stay in business
they have to provide a product that people are willing to buy.  People
are buying, so I conclude that the owners are providing a reasonable
product.  Could it be improved?  Undoubtably.  I'm sure the owners
would like to hear about any ideas you might have.

The DH has been adopted by every baseball league in the world, except
the National League.  I wonder how those "unimaginative owners",
interested only in "the bottom line", could have had such an impact.

>--Mike D.--

-Jeff    jjd@cray.com
--
"The worst crime against working people is a company which fails to
operate at a profit."  -Samual Gompers