Post-Strike: What "Saved" Baseball?

[Outshined_One]

I'm in the midst of a discussion with some people at the moment regarding what exactly saved baseball following the strike. According to most of the people involved in the argument, a large number of people in the United States grew disgusted with baseball during and following the strike due to a myriad of reasons (cancelled World Series, greed, etc). The logic that follows from this was that MLB would have basically gone under if certain things had not saved baseball.

 

There are a couple of theories regarding what precisely was what saved baseball. A few of them are...

 

-The resurgence of the Yankees along with the continuing Yankees/Red Sox rivalry.

-The McGwire/Sosa HR chase.

-Significant increases in international exposure through more and more foreign-born stars rising to prominence (Ichiro, Hideki Matsui, Sammy Sosa, etc).

-Increased offensive production.

 

So...did any of these save baseball? None of them? Did baseball even need saving to begin with?

 

I'm curious to see what people think.

[sweetpeteman]

A large part of it goes to Sosa/McGuire, especially because of the fan friendly demeanor both guys had. But the rise of international stars, especially the Latin American stars, really brought in a lot of exposure. I think, in the end, the combination of new rules that brought in more competition and the homerun chase pushed it back to the main stream.

[A New Era]

The HR race is what brought people back to baseball. I'll stand by that. I remember hating all baseball players. And during the time it heated up I thought "well that's nice, it will bring more people back to baseball". .

[RockTheIvy]

The HR chase was huge. But I also think the '98 Cubs season did a lot for me as far as getting back into the game. Harry died prior to that year. Wood struck out 20. The Cubs made the playoffs. It was a fantastic season for the Cubs and I think it played a bigger role than people realize in bringing the fans back.

[Bgbird68]

The sad thing to me now is how cool I thought the home run race was at the time, and now how I think the whole thing was chemically enhanced.

[CubinNY]

Nothing saved baseball. It was only natural that people would be slow to come back, but as the cliché goes, time heals all wounds. People would have came back no matter what. Baseball is bigger than the idiots who run it.

[RynoRules]

Nothing saved baseball. It was only natural that people would be slow to come back, but as the cliché goes, time heals all wounds. People would have came back no matter what. Baseball is bigger than the idiots who run it.

 

I agree. I think its romantic to assign credit to Sosa and McGwire, but I thought this thing really turned in 03' when we had classic playoff series involving baseball's three most popular teams. Ratings and attendance all went up the following year. People forget that the 02' WS was the lowest rated in history (even though it was a lot of fun to watch).

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I don't think anyone can overlook Cal Ripken's streak and the way he handled himself that season following the streak.

 

Ripken's march toward the consecutive games record was a "feel-good" story that drew many people toward the game. In addition, Ripken would make a point to sign autographs for hundreds of people at nearly every park that season as he marched toward history.

 

I'm sure we'll hear a lot about it when Ripken is inducted into Cooperstown.

 

I'm in no way saying it is "the" thing that brought people back to the game, but it is worthy of being mentioned in the discussion.

[NCCubFan]

I think it's a combination of a couple of the aforementioned factors. Ripken's streak helped preserve interest in baseball immediately following the streak. Then the Sosa-McGwire race helped baseball surge to its current popularity. I think fans would have eventually come back anyway, but those events helped speed it up.

[stitchface]

what saved baseball? you, me and everyone else on this forum.

[Tim]

I may take some heat for this, but...

 

Fantasy baseball.

[wade]

I may take some heat for this, but...

 

Fantasy baseball.

 

You are probably right.

 

Fantasy sports has certainly made the N.F.L. more popular, just look at the bottom line during telecasts. This will be my first year in fantasy baseball and I'm already resigned to the fact that I will buy MLB extra innings. In the past I've only paid for the internet radio to hear Cub games.

 

As far as my interest in the Cubs, the home run chase of 98 and my marriage to a Chicago suburbanite hooked me.

[stitchface]

I may take some heat for this, but...

 

Fantasy baseball.

 

yes, and perhaps even more significantly, the internet. I stopped following the Cubs when I left Chicago until I could follow them on-line.

[erik316wttn]

I think the HR chase singlehandedly brought the fans back. It made National headlines, to the point where you'd read about it in the New York Times, or see it on the evening news.

 

And the ironic thing to me is this: Every fan I know hates steroids and hates the players that used them. However, if the 2 guys in 98 were steroid-assisted, look what it did for the game. Imagine the fanbase in baseball today if the home run chase had never happened.

 

I think it's kinda weird. Baseball was possibly saved by the very thing that could destroy the game down the line.

[erik316wttn]

I may take some heat for this, but...

 

Fantasy baseball.

 

I think that was a big factor. People are definately going to pay more attention to a game if someone from their fantasy team is playing in the game. It adds interest.

[RynoRules]

I think the HR chase singlehandedly brought the fans back. It made National headlines, to the point where you'd read about it in the New York Times, or see it on the evening news.

 

And the ironic thing to me is this: Every fan I know hates steroids and hates the players that used them. However, if the 2 guys in 98 were steroid-assisted, look what it did for the game. Imagine the fanbase in baseball today if the home run chase had never happened.

 

I think it's kinda weird. Baseball was possibly saved by the very thing that could destroy the game down the line.

 

Nice observation; read "Juicing the Game". Its an entire book based on that premis.

[NorthsideAvenger]

What got me back into baseball, WASN'T THE HR CHASE, and it really wasn't Cal's streak, or fantasy baseball, in fact is was a non-Cubs event. The yr was 1995, Mattingly's last yr(Sidenote: Mattingly was my favorite non-Cub player) and the first rd of the playoffs between Seattle and New York. The Yanks had put up a 2 games to 0 lead over the Mariners, but Seattle fought back to even it up at 2-2. The game was a classic. It went to the 11 inning where the Yankees look to finish up the game by scoring the lead run. The bottom half of the inning, Cora lead off with a bunt single, for a Junior single to center, with Cora going to third. E. Martinez then drove a doubled down the left field line; Cora scored, and then we see the "classic" video of seeing Griffey racing around the diamond to scoring the winning run. That GAME reminded me of how great baseball is, and can be again. I tuned back to baseball after that game.

 

 

HR chase, Cal-Streak, fantasy baseball, are all good choices, but I think installing the WILD CARD was the biggest reason why people return to baseball. This allow more teams to stay in the post season hunt, in turn kept people interests in the favorite team high.

[LeftCoastCubFan]

Baseball the game has not really been saved yet, only the business of baseball has. Just take a look at total baseball attendance (figures from BallparksOfBaseball.com):

 

1988 – 53.0 mil

1989 – 55.1

1990 – 54.8

1991 – 56.8

1992 – 55.6

1993 – 70.3 (Florida and Colorado expansion)

1994 – 50.0 (only 114 games played equates to 71.0 if a full season played)

1995 – 50.5 (only 143 games played equates to 57.0 if a full season played) (Wild Card Added)

1996 – 60.1

1997 – 62.9 (Interleague play begins)

1998 – 70.6 (Arizona and Tampa expansion)

1999 – 70.1

2000 – 72.7

2001 – 72.6

2002 – 68.0

2003 – 67.6

2004 – 73.0

2005 – 74.5

 

First take a look at the spike in attendance in ’93 of 14.7 million in attendance in the year before the strike. 7.5 mil was due to the new expansion teams. 6 mil in increases was due to unique circumstances where the Yankees, Cubs, Giants, Dodgers, Mariners, Tigers, Phillies, and Indians returning to winning records after one or more losing seasons. It was a huge jump and it did continue at that rate during ’94; though the increases were unlikely to be sustainable as all of the teams were unlikely to continue to win indefinitely.

 

’95 through ’97 attendance figures were lower, which would be expected for some fan apathy, but the numbers aren’t that far from the trends through ’92. Given ’93 and it’s carry over into ’94 was an anomaly; baseball was not in need of saving in ’98.

 

On the surface ’98 was another big attendance jump of 8.7 mil. But 6.1 mil of that was due to the new expansion teams. So the increase for the other teams was in line with increases for the prior two years. There is no evidence the Sosa-Mark show had much of an effect (nor the wild card nor interleague play nor the Yankees to any great degree earlier).

 

So other then expansion or the occasional multiple teams return to glory, baseball usually adds a few million a year, occasionally losing a few.

 

If you use ’93 as a reference 4.2 million fans were added since. But when you factor in Arizona and Tampa which didn’t exist then, and the difference between Montreal’s ’93 attendance and Washing ton in 2005; they account for 4 mil of the difference. So I see the numbers as stagnant. Since some of the attendance was due to 15 new ballparks since ’94, it is unlikely the attendance figures are sustainable in the long run (only a few new ones left, and no expansion likely soon). So any true saving will be needed in the future when attendance trends down.

 

Baseball the business has saved itself at least for now by growing revenues (from ’94 to ’05 revenues grew from just under 2 bil to about 4.5 bil). They did this by raising ticket prices, selling advertising and naming rights, broadcast rights, internet revenues, etc. Through revenue sharing, debt controls, and maybe the benefit of a little collusion a few years back, most franchises are financially healthy. At least until the owners implode again

Edited January 30, 2006 by LeftCoastCubFan

[sweetpeteman]

Florida and Colorado expaned in 93, Tampa Bay and Arizona in 98, Seattle has been around since 77 (in the last previous expansion, with Toronto).

 

 

Florida won the World Series in 97.

[LeftCoastCubFan]

Florida and Colorado expaned in 93, Tampa Bay and Arizona in 98, Seattle has been around since 77 (in the last previous expansion, with Toronto).

 

 

Florida won the World Series in 97.

Ooops :oops: Corrected

[DiamondMind]

Steroids.

[DesMoinesCub]

I think all of the things mentioned has helped baseball, but the thing that saved it was baseball itself. How many of us have attended a baseball game between two teams (high school,college, minors) that we have no connection to. I have many times. Baseball is baseball. The "true" fans would have come back because it is the sport they played when they were kids. It is the sport they played with their dad in the backyard. Maybe I am in the minority, but if replacement players would have played the following year, I would have been there cheering on the Cubs. I might not have known any of the guys playing, but players come and go all the time. The Cubs still would have been the Cubs.

 

I guess, what I am trying to say, is that nothing had to happen to "save" baseball. The game has saved itself to the real fans of the game.

[cl smooth]

What got me back into baseball, WASN'T THE HR CHASE, and it really wasn't Cal's streak, or fantasy baseball, in fact is was a non-Cubs event. The yr was 1995, Mattingly's last yr(Sidenote: Mattingly was my favorite non-Cub player) and the first rd of the playoffs between Seattle and New York. The Yanks had put up a 2 games to 0 lead over the Mariners, but Seattle fought back to even it up at 2-2. The game was a classic. It went to the 11 inning where the Yankees look to finish up the game by scoring the lead run. The bottom half of the inning, Cora lead off with a bunt single, for a Junior single to center, with Cora going to third. E. Martinez then drove a doubled down the left field line; Cora scored, and then we see the "classic" video of seeing Griffey racing around the diamond to scoring the winning run. That GAME reminded me of how great baseball is, and can be again. I tuned back to baseball after that game.

 

i will always remember two things from that game:

 

1. griffey's bright white smile sticking out from the bottom of that pile.

 

2. the look at mattingly's face. i wanted to cry and i was 13 at the time. and to pour salt on the wound, the yankees won it all a year later...AFTER he retired.

 

mattingly was great...even though he never shaved off those sideburns.

[bhogg]

The return of Ryne Sandberg did it for me.

[ConstableRabbit]

Baseball the game has not really been saved yet, only the business of baseball has. Just take a look at total baseball attendance (figures from BallparksOfBaseball.com):

 

1988 – 53.0 mil

1989 – 55.1

1990 – 54.8

1991 – 56.8

1992 – 55.6

1993 – 70.3 (Florida and Colorado expansion)

1994 – 50.0 (only 114 games played equates to 71.0 if a full season played)

1995 – 50.5 (only 143 games played equates to 57.0 if a full season played) (Wild Card Added)

1996 – 60.1

1997 – 62.9 (Interleague play begins)

1998 – 70.6 (Arizona and Tampa expansion)

1999 – 70.1

2000 – 72.7

2001 – 72.6

2002 – 68.0

2003 – 67.6

2004 – 73.0

2005 – 74.5

 

First take a look at the spike in attendance in ’93 of 14.7 million in attendance in the year before the strike. 7.5 mil was due to the new expansion teams. 6 mil in increases was due to unique circumstances where the Yankees, Cubs, Giants, Dodgers, Mariners, Tigers, Phillies, and Indians returning to winning records after one or more losing seasons. It was a huge jump and it did continue at that rate during ’94; though the increases were unlikely to be sustainable as all of the teams were unlikely to continue to win indefinitely.

 

’95 through ’97 attendance figures were lower, which would be expected for some fan apathy, but the numbers aren’t that far from the trends through ’92. Given ’93 and it’s carry over into ’94 was an anomaly; baseball was not in need of saving in ’98.

 

On the surface ’98 was another big attendance jump of 8.7 mil. But 6.1 mil of that was due to the new expansion teams. So the increase for the other teams was in line with increases for the prior two years. There is no evidence the Sosa-Mark show had much of an effect (nor the wild card nor interleague play nor the Yankees to any great degree earlier).

 

So other then expansion or the occasional multiple teams return to glory, baseball usually adds a few million a year, occasionally losing a few.

 

If you use ’93 as a reference 4.2 million fans were added since. But when you factor in Arizona and Tampa which didn’t exist then, and the difference between Montreal’s ’93 attendance and Washing ton in 2005; they account for 4 mil of the difference. So I see the numbers as stagnant. Since some of the attendance was due to 15 new ballparks since ’94, it is unlikely the attendance figures are sustainable in the long run (only a few new ones left, and no expansion likely soon). So any true saving will be needed in the future when attendance trends down.

 

Baseball the business has saved itself at least for now by growing revenues (from ’94 to ’05 revenues grew from just under 2 bil to about 4.5 bil). They did this by raising ticket prices, selling advertising and naming rights, broadcast rights, internet revenues, etc. Through revenue sharing, debt controls, and maybe the benefit of a little collusion a few years back, most franchises are financially healthy. At least until the owners implode again

 

Those stats are cool. However, I'm not so sure that you can measure the "return" of baseball on attendance figures. The fans will eventually come back to the seats if their team is playing well (much like your Cubs, Yankees, Indians comment alluded to). I think the resurgance of baseball is more attuned to the attitudes people held toward the game. After all, there are people who love baseball but don't go to games anyway (too expensive, rather watch at home, etc).