Current Events > Can someone tell me why so many users on here hate baseball

(+) Yeah! (+)

Most people hate baseball. It's why they are trying to change the fundamental rules of the game hoping that people will watch it again. They won't

DuranOfForcena posted...

all sportsball is dumb and boring

but baseball is more so

wow youre so cool calling it sportsball

cjsdowg posted...

boring , takes to long for stuff to happen. Unwritten rules, the season seems like it is takes 10 months.

It's gone from 154 games in 1920 to 162 in 1961 (AL) and 1962 (NL). And the season only lasts 6-ish months. (April though October)

I still watch baseball, but there is an inherent unfairness in it that is not present in the other major sports. Not having revenue sharing and a salary cap means the gap between the haves and the have nots is immense, and it seems to be growing.

I'm a Brewers fan, and lately we have about a $110 mil payroll give or take a few million. The Dodgers have around $300 mil annually and the New York teams are right behind them. There is zero chance that my Brewers can compete with the Dodgers year in and year out, and our only hope to compete is to get insanely lucky with home grown talent and take advantage of the one or two year window we have with it.

The Florida Marlins (now Miami Marlins) are the perfect example of that. They'll have one good year and then be forced to trade away their talent or risk losing the players for free to a big market team. Their current payroll is like $70ish mil I think, and the tippoty top talent goes for $30-35 mil per year.

It is hard to get people invested in their team when they go into a season knowing that they have zero chance at success.

It's just not everyone's cup of tea. I love baseball and if people aren't into it, whatever. It's a slower sport and that's what I like about it.

I am concerned about the future of the sport though. I think a decent amount of young people would like it if they gave it a chance.

Also I'll add that it becomes less boring the more you know what's going on. It's all about mind games and strategy. Again, not everyone's cup of tea, but if you say it's nothing more than people throwing a ball around you just don't know what you're talking about.

There have been 2 baseball player strikes that I can remember, and the first strike is what turned me off of baseball. Millionaires complaining about not making enough millions.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Because expansion. More teams meant increasing the length of the season. It went from 8 teams in 1904 to 10 in 1961. Since then, it's ballooned to 30 teams, and instead of each league having just one division, it changed to each having an "East" and "West" division (and thus League Championships instead of the winners going straight to the World Series), then again to East, Central and West divisions and a Wild Card, now two wild cards.

bluezero posted...

There have been 2 baseball player strikes that I can remember, and the first strike is what turned me off of baseball. Millionaires complaining about not making enough millions.

Yeah, the 1994 strike that caused the World Series to be cancelled for the first time since the 1904 season. There was talk about fielding scab teams (except Baltimore, as owner Peter Angelos refused to field a team due to Cal Ripken's consecutive game streak)

Allanon23 posted...

I still watch baseball, but there is an inherent unfairness in it that is not present in the other major sports. Not having revenue sharing and a salary cap means the gap between the haves and the have nots is immense, and it seems to be growing.

I'm a Brewers fan, and lately we have about a $110 mil payroll give or take a few million. The Dodgers have around $300 mil annually and the New York teams are right behind them. There is zero chance that my Brewers can compete with the Dodgers year in and year out, and our only hope to compete is to get insanely lucky with home grown talent and take advantage of the one or two year window we have with it.

The Florida Marlins (now Miami Marlins) are the perfect example of that. They'll have one good year and then be forced to trade away their talent or risk losing the players for free to a big market team. Their current payroll is like $70ish mil I think, and the tippoty top talent goes for $30-35 mil per year.

It is hard to get people invested in their team when they go into a season knowing that they have zero chance at success.

there's revenue sharing. the mlbpa filed a grievance against the pirates, athletics, rays and Marlins for not spending it on players. I don't think it went anywhere.

And yet, when was the last time the Yankees made the League Championship Series? Just because a team has money doesnt guarantee success. Look at the NFL, the NFC has four of the nine wealthiest teams, yet how many championships in the 15 years?

The only thing forcing teams like the Marlins to sell players or cut costs is their owners. They all can afford to spend on players, some teams would just rather pocket the money instead of trying to compete.

AsucaHayashi posted...

here's a question:

does everybody have a baseball bat in their home(hobby, defense or whatever) or is it just a hollywood thing since it seems like everybody's prime choice of defense is either a knife or a baseball bat if a gun isn't available?

Yeah I have a 33 oz Ash bat. Mostly cause I wanted to do some BP with a wood bat cause Id never used one.

Of course I took it to the batting cages like 3 times and now it sits next to my PC to bash a potential home intruder.

Also a bat is way more effective weapon than a knife

Allanon23 posted...

I still watch baseball, but there is an inherent unfairness in it that is not present in the other major sports. Not having revenue sharing and a salary cap means the gap between the haves and the have nots is immense, and it seems to be growing.

This is probably my biggest issue with baseball and why I dont watch it.

berlyman101 posted...

there's revenue sharing. the mlbpa filed a grievance against the pirates, athletics, rays and Marlins for not spending it on players. I don't think it went anywhere.

Only 48% of the teams revenue is shared, and I don't think local media deals are included in that. Look at how much the Dodgers bring in from their Spectrum deal alone and you'll see the disparity.

And yes, that sort of thing will never go anywhere because you can't have a real salary floor without full revenue sharing like the NFL.

TyVulpine posted...

And yet, when was the last time the Yankees made the League Championship Series? Just because a team has money doesnt guarantee success. Look at the NFL, the NFC has four of the nine wealthiest teams, yet how many championships in the 15 years?

The NFL has a hard salary cap, which is why their wealth doesn't matter. And the Yankees haven't won because they have been *horribly* mismanaged for a long ass time. Money isn't everything, but it is definitely an advantage.

Antifar posted...

The only thing forcing teams like the Marlins to sell players or cut costs is their owners. They all can afford to spend on players, some teams would just rather pocket the money instead of trying to compete.

The Marlins and Pirates have notoriously cheap owners, that's true.

But there is no denying that they are not on the same tier as the Dodgers, Phillies, or even the Padres.

DepreceV2 posted...

This is probably my biggest issue with baseball and why I dont watch it.

I legit can't get any of my friends interested and the Brewers have been historically great the past few years (for us. We didn't go to the WS or anything but we at least we've made the playoffs).

Damn_Underscore posted...

I think there are a lot of non-sports fans on here in general but baseball seems to get extra hate

Its the one sport you can leave on in the background while only paying as much attention as you want to, which is perfect for a summer sport. And its also like a turn-based RPG in real life which gamers should like

Why would you assume the all gamers enjoy turn based RPGs?

I don't hate it, but it's boring as hell to watch. You can get a whole game's worth of excitement by just watching the highlight reel. The tension is minimal since there's technically not a "time limit" on how long things can drag out. In football, there's a maximum number of points one can get with each given possession. So you know if you're down three touchdowns in the fourth quarter, you'd need a lot of work done in a very short period of time, between scoring three touchdowns and preventing your opponent from scoring.

In baseball, you could be down 9 runs in the final inning, but if you get enough hits you can just hammer out all nine of them in a single rotation. Is it likely? Nah, but it's boring to watch. Baseball is like 90% pitcher vs. batter and 10% "Sometimes the guys in the field miss a catch and things go CRAZY"

Antifar posted...

The only thing forcing teams like the Marlins to sell players or cut costs is their owners. They all can afford to spend on players, some teams would just rather pocket the money instead of trying to compete.

More like theyre throwing things at the wall and hoping something sticks. Thats not how you build a competitive team. You dont get rid your stars. You build around them.

AsucaHayashi posted...

here's a question:

does everybody have a baseball bat in their home(hobby, defense or whatever) or is it just a hollywood thing since it seems like everybody's prime choice of defense is either a knife or a baseball bat if a gun isn't available?

I have a machete

Allanon23 posted...

I still watch baseball, but there is an inherent unfairness in it that is not present in the other major sports. Not having revenue sharing and a salary cap means the gap between the haves and the have nots is immense, and it seems to be growing.

I'm a Brewers fan, and lately we have about a $110 mil payroll give or take a few million. The Dodgers have around $300 mil annually and the New York teams are right behind them. There is zero chance that my Brewers can compete with the Dodgers year in and year out, and our only hope to compete is to get insanely lucky with home grown talent and take advantage of the one or two year window we have with it.

The Florida Marlins (now Miami Marlins) are the perfect example of that. They'll have one good year and then be forced to trade away their talent or risk losing the players for free to a big market team. Their current payroll is like $70ish mil I think, and the tippoty top talent goes for $30-35 mil per year.

It is hard to get people invested in their team when they go into a season knowing that they have zero chance at success.

There is revenue sharing in baseball, though.

And the lack of a salary cap does not create unfairness. The salary Cap's purpose is not to create an even playing field for all teams. It's too protect the owners from spending too much money, and to artificially limit players' salaries. That's it.

The reason teams like the Marlins and Pirates are bad isn't because there's no salary cap, it's because their owners have historically been terrible and don't care about winning. Every team is owned by rich people, and every team is capable of spending.

Star Ocean 3 posted...

And the lack of a salary cap does not create unfairness. The salary Cap's purpose is not to create an even playing field for all teams. It's too protect the owners from spending too much money, and to artificially limit players' salaries. That's it.

Correct.

By the way, Ken Burns' Baseball documentary that chronicles the game from its humble beginnings up to (I think) about 2005 is free to watch on the PBS app/smart TV channel. I think this often happens when the season starts and the show is fantastic -- can definitely make you a fan of the game.

Baseball is my favorite of the big four. In fact, I dont even like the other three. I used to be addicted to baseball in the early 2000s and late 90s.

TyVulpine posted...

And yet, when was the last time the Yankees made the League Championship Series? Just because a team has money doesnt guarantee success. Look at the NFL, the NFC has four of the nine wealthiest teams, yet how many championships in the 15 years?

The NFL has a salary cap

Star Ocean 3 posted...

There is revenue sharing in baseball, though.

Only 48% and it doesn't effect all media contracts. The NFL has full revenue sharing.

Star Ocean 3 posted...

And the lack of a salary cap does not create unfairness. The salary Cap's purpose is not to create an even playing field for all teams. It's too protect the owners from spending too much money, and to artificially limit players' salaries. That's it.

But the even playing field is a side effect of a salary cap. Tyreek Hill literally could not sign with the Chiefs and get the money he wanted, so he forced his way out to Miami who will end up being less trash and maybe make some noise in their division. You see good players getting cut as a cap casualty all the time.

To say that the hard salary cap doesn't create parity as a byproduct of its other functions is ludicrous.

What stadiums have y'all been too?

Off the top of my head I've been to: Marlins stadium, Ray's stadium, Orioles, Braves, Pittsburgh, Fenway, and old Yankees stadium.

I think that's all.

I've been to the old Memorial Stadium (Orioles) and Nationals Park.

Allanon23 posted...

Only 48% and it doesn't effect all media contracts. The NFL has full revenue sharing.

But the even playing field is a side effect of a salary cap. Tyreek Hill literally could not sign with the Chiefs and get the money he wanted, so he forced his way out to Miami who will end up being less trash and maybe make some noise in their division. You see good players getting cut as a cap casualty all the time.

To say that the hard salary cap doesn't create parity as a byproduct of its other functions is ludicrous.

I don't see how any of that is a good thing. Why is it fair or good that the Chiefs can't keep a star player they drafted? Why should we be excited to see teams drop players solely because they're over an artificial salary limit? Reading about teams "navigating the cap" and "creating cap space" is one of the worst parts of US sports that fans have been duped into accepting.

And if you want to get into the small market thing, Kansas City is about as small as they come, so the cap clearly didn't help them there. Parity is not as desirable as you think it is, especially not at the cost of depriving players of being paid their worth, and having a cap doesn't transform bad teams into good ones. Owners don't want a free market because it drives up costs for them, and they don't care about parity.

HovaRex posted...

What stadiums have y'all been too?

Off the top of my head I've been to: Marlins stadium, Ray's stadium, Orioles, Braves, Pittsburgh, Fenway, and old Yankees stadium.

I think that's all.

Shea Stadium, Citi Field and wherever it is that the Brooklyn Cyclones play

To everyone who thinks baseball is boring, do you also think turn-based RPGs are boring?

Star Ocean 3 posted...

I don't see how any of that is a good thing. Why is it fair or good that the Chiefs can't keep a star player they drafted? Why should we be excited to see teams drop players solely because they're over an artificial salary limit? Reading about teams "navigating the cap" and "creating cap space" is one of the worst parts of US sports that fans have been duped into accepting.

They chose to not have a flexible cap situation when they paid Mahomes the (at the time) record breaking contract.

And it's perfectly fair because otherwise you get a situation like the Dodgers, who will be the NL favorites every damn year until a team like the Giants or Padres splurge even more and it becomes an arms race that only 5 teams in baseball can compete in.

Star Ocean 3 posted...

And if you want to get into the small market thing, Kansas City is about as small as they come, so the cap clearly didn't help them there. Parity is not as desirable as you think it is, especially not at the cost of depriving players of being paid their worth, and having a cap doesn't transform bad teams into good ones. Owners don't want a free market because it drives up costs for them, and they don't care about parity.

Market size doesn't matter in the NFL precisely because of the cap and complete revenue sharing. My Green Bay Packers have a very small market and have been consistent contenders for the last 30 years. Without the cap, we would literally never be able to compete with big markets like NY and Dallas. Jerry Jones would sign the top 5 FAs every year to ridiculous contracts because he is insanely desperate for another title. He's actually tried to get the salary cap removed MULTIPLE times, but each time the issue is brought forward the small market teams reject the notion.

Having a cap does not stop players from getting paid what they are worth. Players like Mahomes, Rodgers, Davante Adams, etc. all have gotten massive deals recently. It encourages players to get their money elsewhere if their current team can't fit them in the cap, thus spreading the talent around the league more.

Allanon23 posted...

Having a cap does not stop players from getting paid what they are worth. Players like Mahomes, Rodgers, Davante Adams, etc. all have gotten massive deals recently.

That is precisely its reason for existing, to limit the amount of revenue that can go towards players so that owners can make more.

The Packers' local revenue was 9th in the league in 2019, so market size is not a hindrance to them
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/07/21/packers-revenue-tops-500-million/

Allanon23 posted...

And it's perfectly fair because otherwise you get a situation like the Dodgers, who will be the NL favorites every damn year until a team like the Giants or Padres splurge even more and it becomes an arms race that only 5 teams in baseball can compete in.

You just highlighted what's great about no salary cap without realizing it. It encourages teams to spend and be competitive. The Padres floundered for years and have only recently become serious about winning. It's good for their city, good for the NL West, and for baseball in general when teams try to win.

Every team should be in an arms race, and they're all capable of it. That's kind of the point of having a sports league with teams competing against each other.

Market size doesn't matter in the NFL precisely because of the cap and complete revenue sharing.

Well, just revenue sharing. There are no small markets in the NFL, cap or not, and if your team drafts well and extends their players, they'll remain competitive.

Having a cap does not stop players from getting paid what they are worth.

Tell that to Lebron James in his prime. He was getting paid nowhere close to his worth.

It encourages players to get their money elsewhere if their current team can't fit them in the cap, thus spreading the talent around the league more.

Punishing teams that draft well and develop superstar players is not a good thing!

Star Ocean 3 posted...

You just highlighted what's great about no salary cap without realizing it. It encourages teams to spend and be competitive. The Padres floundered for years and have only recently become serious about winning. It's good for their city, good for the NL West, and for baseball in general when teams try to win.

Every team should be in an arms race, and they're all capable of it. That's kind of the point of having a sports league with teams competing against each other.

No they fucking aren't lmfao. Who can outspend the Dodgers with that Spectrum deal? Or the Yankees with the YES network? Who can outspend the Clippers with that Balmer money?

This is the most batshit thing I've ever read. David Tepper of the Panthers could own the entirety of the city of Green Bay if he wanted to and you think every team is capable of competing without a cap?

Star Ocean 3 posted...

Well, just revenue sharing. There are no small markets in the NFL, cap or not, and if your team drafts well and extends their players, they'll remain competitive.

No, it's because of the cap. Otherwise everyone would end up signing with the NY Giants or Jets. The Rams were able to bring in a lot of vets for cheap, but they can't be competitive long because of that. Players will leave and get paid what they are worth.

Star Ocean 3 posted...

Tell that to Lebron James in his prime. He was getting paid nowhere close to his worth.

False. He was getting paid hundreds of millions in endorsement money. It goes without saying that a superstar, generational player will still get paid what they are worth even when operating under a salary cap. Michael Jordan famously made over 100% of the teams salary cap one year. The NBA has a flexible system with Bird Rights and shit to get over the soft cap and pay a heavy luxury tax.

Star Ocean 3 posted...

Punishing teams that draft well and develop superstar players is not a good thing!

The LA Lakers have three max contract players. The Milwaukee Bucks have 3 as well. A well run organization can still keep their players, it just gets to a point where once you have TOO much you need to make some sacrifices.

Will there be some circumstances where a team can't keep a Tyreek Hill or Jaire Alexander? Yes. However, that is a MUCH better outcome than a team buying out all of the top talent and concentrating it in the big cities like what baseball is running into with the Dodgers and ran into in the late 90s with the Yankees.

It's the perfect socializing sport because you can spend more time talking to your friends/family instead of watching the game because it is slow af

It was my favorite sport to play while growing up. Played nonstop from ages 5-17 and was on varsity in 11th and 12th grade (the school I went to for 9th and 10th didn't have a varsity team...or even a practice field). It is mind numbingly boring to watch though, except for games that matter like in the postseason.

MacadamianNut3 posted...

It's the perfect socializing sport because you can spend more time talking to your friends/family instead of watching the game because it is slow af

This is why I'm salty my friends can't get into it. I drag them to two or three games per year and tailgating is a fucking blast. But beyond that they don't care about the sport at all.

As a baseball fan, you kind of have to be raised with baseball to really appreciate its nuances. Complaints about it be slow are really cut when you appreciate the tension between pitches and the TV broadcast misses a lot as well.

For example, my wife is a diehard football and hockey fan like me, and Ive gotten her to appreciate boxing as well, but baseball is just a bore to her. Shes perfectly okay with letting me have our kids root for the Cubs whereas my Chicago fandom butts heads with her Pittsburgh fandom in the other sports.

BTW today is the last day to get free MLB.tv for the season if you have TMobile

Allanon23 posted...

However, that is a MUCH better outcome than a team buying out all of the top talent and concentrating it in the big cities like what baseball is running into with the Dodgers and ran into in the late 90s with the Yankees.

New England won 6 Super Bowls (and played in three more) since 2000, the Dodgers and Yankees have combined for 6 titles (+4 WS appearances) since 96. The AFC has been won by just 7 different franchises in the last 25 years; the American League by 10. The NFC has been won by 12/16 teams in that span, the NL by 12/15.

Salary caps don't produce parity.

The Pats are an anomaly, partially because the most important position is QB and Brady took pay cuts while there because his wife is worth more than him so he wasn't pressured to get all he can while he was able to play.

Antifar posted...

New England won 6 Super Bowls (and played in three more) since 2000, the Dodgers and Yankees have combined for 6 titles (+4 WS appearances) since 96. The AFC has been won by just 7 different franchises in the last 25 years; the American League by 10. The NFC has been won by 12/16 teams in that span, the NL by 12/15.

Salary caps don't produce parity.

As Waterlink said, NE is an anomaly. They had a unanimous top 3 head coach of all time as well as an all-time great QB who got paid pennies on the dollar during his prime because his supermodel wife brought home the bacon.

And besides, judging parity by just looking at who won the championship isn't getting the whole picture. You need to factor in the gap between the top teams in the league and the bottom, as well as how easy it is for a bad team to reach the top.

I wish it was 6 or 7 innings rather than 9. Thats too much. Especially when you get into extra innings.

Bleuets posted...

I wish it was 6 or 7 innings rather than 9. Thats too much. Especially when you get into extra innings.

Then go watch Little League or high school.

Allanon23 posted...

No they fucking aren't lmfao. Who can outspend the Dodgers with that Spectrum deal? Or the Yankees with the YES network? Who can outspend the Clippers with that Balmer money?

This is the most batshit thing I've ever read. David Tepper of the Panthers could own the entirety of the city of Green Bay if he wanted to and you think every team is capable of competing without a cap?

You don't have to outspend the Dodgers to be competitive. Look at who beat them last year. Look at what the Mets' payroll got them last year. Every sport has avenues for teams to compete outside of free agency: drafting and developing players. There's not a single team that isn't capable of doing that.

And yeah, the Dodgers spending so much made the Giants and Padres step up and spend more too, and the NL West is the most competitive and entertaining it's ever been. A rising tide, and all that.

No, it's because of the cap. Otherwise everyone would end up signing with the NY Giants or Jets.

Why would they? All NFL teams can afford players because of revenue sharing.

False. He was getting paid hundreds of millions in endorsement money. It goes without saying that a superstar, generational player will still get paid what they are worth even when operating under a salary cap. Michael Jordan famously made over 100% of the teams salary cap one year. The NBA has a flexible system with Bird Rights and shit to get over the soft cap and pay a heavy luxury tax.

You know I'm talking about his NBA salary. Endorsements have nothing to do with that.

The LA Lakers have three max contract players. The Milwaukee Bucks have 3 as well. A well run organization can still keep their players, it just gets to a point where once you have TOO much you need to make some sacrifices.
Will there be some circumstances where a team can't keep a Tyreek Hill or Jaire Alexander? Yes. However, that is a MUCH better outcome than a team buying out all of the top talent and concentrating it in the big cities like what baseball is running into with the Dodgers and ran into in the late 90s with the Yankees.

The Yankees' core was built on homegrown players. The Dodgers have scouted well and traded for good players. There's nothing unfair about what they're doing, and it's not their fault teams like the Pirates and Orioles don't care about winning. There's plenty of talent spread out across baseball, the problem is MLB has no idea how to market their players.

So no, what you want is a league where every team is a feeder for each other. You want teams to collude to eliminate the open market in the interest of saving their owners' money, and accepted their lie of it all being in the name of competitive balance. Owners like Steve Ballmer have the right outlook on owning a team - you don't do it to become rich, you do it because you're already rich, and want to enjoy owning a winning team. Unfortunately, he's in the minority, and most owners simply want to make money at the expense of the players. We as fans should never support money-grubbing owners.

boring since base stealing plunged to all time lows. was way more exciting then. you weren't just waiting hours for someone to blast one outta the park and there was actually stuff going on.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

I don't hate it, but it's boring as hell to watch. You can get a whole game's worth of excitement by just watching the highlight reel. The tension is minimal since there's technically not a "time limit" on how long things can drag out. In football, there's a maximum number of points one can get with each given possession. So you know if you're down three touchdowns in the fourth quarter, you'd need a lot of work done in a very short period of time, between scoring three touchdowns and preventing your opponent from scoring.

In baseball, you could be down 9 runs in the final inning, but if you get enough hits you can just hammer out all nine of them in a single rotation. Is it likely? Nah, but it's boring to watch. Baseball is like 90% pitcher vs. batter and 10% "Sometimes the guys in the field miss a catch and things go CRAZY"

Nah, that's exactly what makes baseball great: there's no clock. You don't lose by running out of time, you lose by running out of chances. There's no NBA garbage time or worrying if your coach knows how to use timeouts. I have no idea how you conclude that a team coming back to score 9 runs in the 9th inning is boring.

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Sorry health and safety of the players is so terrible for you

Case in point Clayton Kershaw just threw 7 perfect innings with 13 strikeouts and was pulled after just 80 pitches. You really think two more innings would be that much more of a safety issue? You don't think Kershaw would want to chase something absolutely historic and monumental?

This is partially what I mean, the game has been turned into a computer simulation based on analytics. Other sports use advance analytics now too but none of them have made the sport feel as "robotic" as modern baseball

it's not just users on here. the popularity of the sport has tanked