7/21 - Cardinals (Flaherty) vs Cubs (Steele): 1:20pm, Apple TV+

[Brock Beauchamp]

Yuck to yesterday's game, a real waste of a Stroman start. But new day with a day game!

Except it is on Apple TV+. Is this a new thing for Apple? I can't recall a day game on the service before.

[Andy]

This isn't the first day game on Apple. An early-season game against Texas was also paywalled.

[Jason Ross]

I hate these Apple+ games.  And I have Apple+.

[Billy62]

Yeah, they played earlier this season. I don't know why they do this. I thought one of the reasons for creating the Marquee Network was to create a place that the Cubs could call home. I thought we were creeping back to the way it was in the WGN era. But now you get some games on Apple, some on ESPN. Maybe its just me being too old school. But there was something comforting knowing what channel the team was going to be playing on any given day.

[Irrelevant Dude]

MLB - Making their product more difficult to watch since 1939.

[JBears79]

2 hours ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I hate these Apple+ games.  And I have Apple+.

Really? I love them. I think their presentation is great. 

[UMFan83]

1 hour ago, Billy62 said:

Yeah, they played earlier this season. I don't know why they do this. I thought one of the reasons for creating the Marquee Network was to create a place that the Cubs could call home. I thought we were creeping back to the way it was in the WGN era. But now you get some games on Apple, some on ESPN. Maybe its just me being too old school. But there was something comforting knowing what channel the team was going to be playing on any given day.

That's just the way the industry is headed.  The money MLB gets from Apple/Peakcock/ESPN is enough to not worry about pissing off fans.  The good days of streaming services are long gone, just have to ride the wave of capitalism.

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 hour ago, JBears79 said:

Really? I love them. I think their presentation is great. 

Their presentation is great (and typically Apple), I'm not a big fan of fracturing MLB broadcasts further and further.

Though Apple's probability percentages are ****ing stupid, to put it bluntly. I don't know if any of you listened to the Effectively Wild podcast last year with one of the heads of the company that does the probabilities but it was super-embarrassing for her. Just really awful tech.

[JBears79]

2 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Their presentation is great (and typically Apple), I'm not a big fan of fracturing MLB broadcasts further and further.

Though Apple's probability percentages are ****ing stupid, to put it bluntly. I don't know if any of you listened to the Effectively Wild podcast last year with one of the heads of the company that does the probabilities but it was super-embarrassing for her. Just really awful tech.

Yeah. I'm not a fan of that either. Just think Apple does a pretty good job with what they get. 

 

I did not. Doesnt surprise me though. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The classic K, K, GIDP half inning

[Ding Dong Johnson]

2 hours ago, JBears79 said:

Really? I love them. I think their presentation is great. 

Same.

[Jason Ross]

Yeah, my "old man yells at a cloud" moment is that I'm a little over the fracturing of the MLB streaming.  It's all over the place right now.

[Andy]

Imagine my joy at pulling up the radio stream of today's game (since I can't watch the game despite paying for MLBTV) to find that Pat and Ron are both gone and some monotonous nothing is calling the game.

ETA - I realize now that Pat is getting his Ford Frick award this weekend, so that's probably why they're both gone. Lousy timing to have an Apple game.

Edited July 21, 2023 by Andy

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Just now, 1908_Cubs said:

Yeah, my "old man yells at a cloud" moment is that I'm a little over the fracturing of the MLB streaming.  It's all over the place right now.

It's really bad.  Especially for a product like MLB where you need habitual watchers over 162 games instead of people making the effort to find a once a week football game.  Worse is that because of that dynamic all these little tastes they're giving to Apple, Peacock, etc are unlikely to convince them to bet big on future rights because the viewership is underwhelming due to the fragmentation/confusion.

[Jason Ross]

Just now, Transmogrified Tiger said:

It's really bad.  Especially for a product like MLB where you need habitual watchers over 162 games instead of people making the effort to find a once a week football game.  Worse is that because of that dynamic all these little tastes they're giving to Apple, Peacock, etc are unlikely to convince them to bet big on future rights because the viewership is underwhelming due to the fragmentation/confusion.

The MLB is the clear poster child of a league of owners right now who's primary, main concern is "how can I make money today".  Every move feels like it's more designed for "cash now" than "long term viewership" and has been for a while.  They blackout games constantly (I can't watch Cubs v Reds games.  I don't have cable, but here in Lexington,KY, a 90 minute drive to Cincinnati, I'm "in their market" so horsefeathers me, right?).  They're fracturing viewership across the board.  You can see it at almost every move. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

4 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

The MLB is the clear poster child of a league of owners right now who's primary, main concern is "how can I make money today".  Every move feels like it's more designed for "cash now" than "long term viewership" and has been for a while.  They blackout games constantly (I can't watch Cubs v Reds games.  I don't have cable, but here in Lexington,KY, a 90 minute drive to Cincinnati, I'm "in their market" so horsefeathers me, right?).  They're fracturing viewership across the board.  You can see it at almost every move. 

Yep, which is why I'm skeptical we'll ever see the parity and revenue sharing needed in baseball to raise interest in it nation-wide. Owners are too focused on what's happening RIGHT NOW with very little interest in laying a foundation for ten years from now.

[Jason Ross]

Just now, Brock Beauchamp said:

Yep, which is why I'm skeptical we'll ever see the parity and revenue sharing needed in baseball to raise interest in it nation-wide. Owners are too focused on what's happening RIGHT NOW with very little interest in laying a foundation for ten years from now.

I think there's a 0% chance we ever get the kind of revenue sharing we'd need for it to be good; as it would require books to be open, the anti-trust gone, and clarity on actual revenue.  Instead we will continue this half-assed revenue sharing where the A's and the Pirates and the Orioles can sit there, play poor, pocket local broadcast money and then adding in self-created barriers like the luxury tax for teams like the Cubs to use as a shield from spending money.  

[Jason Ross]

Steele getting nickel and dimed here.  

[Irrelevant Dude]

3 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Yep, which is why I'm skeptical we'll ever see the parity and revenue sharing needed in baseball to raise interest in it nation-wide. Owners are too focused on what's happening RIGHT NOW with very little interest in laying a foundation for ten years from now.

Does baseball really need more revenue sharing though?  A glance at the standings shows there are plenty of smaller markets doing just fine.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

That was ball 4 but I'm very happy to see Seiya swinging 3-0 nonetheless

[Transmogrified Tiger]

and then he takes one down the middle and takes ball 4 for a bad strike 3, wonderful

[chibears55]

2 hours ago, JBears79 said:

Really? I love them. I think their presentation is great. 

I agree, I like the picture and graphics better the Marquee,  also I find listening to Boog and whomever replaces him or JD annoying and boring for the most part.

[Jason Ross]

2 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

and then he takes one down the middle and takes ball 4 for a bad strike 3, wonderful

Yeah, frustrating PA all around.  On one hand, happy to see him swing at a 3-0 pitch, then disappointing to see him take the 3-1 (though heatmap wise suggests he's not so hot on mid-away), then gets rung up on a correct take on a 3-2.  

Edited July 21, 2023 by 1908_Cubs

[Brock Beauchamp]

15 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I think there's a 0% chance we ever get the kind of revenue sharing we'd need for it to be good; as it would require books to be open, the anti-trust gone, and clarity on actual revenue.  Instead we will continue this half-assed revenue sharing where the A's and the Pirates and the Orioles can sit there, play poor, pocket local broadcast money and then adding in self-created barriers like the luxury tax for teams like the Cubs to use as a shield from spending money.  

Pretty much exactly this.

[Brock Beauchamp]

14 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

Does baseball really need more revenue sharing though?  A glance at the standings shows there are plenty of smaller markets doing just fine.

Yeah, but smaller markets can only compete in brief bursts, they have to play by entirely different rules than bigger market teams. 100% parity probably isn't the solution but balancing the scales a bit more is good for the sport as a whole. TV revenue has really broken baseball over the past couple of decades. Having the Dodgers bring in $250m a year from TV while the Brewers bring in $40m isn't good for baseball.