The Black Hole of Sports

[Rico444]

Something like 8% of MLB players are black, I'm going off of memory and there was only one black player in the World Series last year. Everything I've read and seen with my own eyes shows that black kids are playing way less baseball than they used to. This is clearly a problem baseball has to address.

They're addressing it; the problem just can't be solved overnight. It's going to take at least a generation before we see the results of their efforts.

 

[WhereistheDove?]

I should clarify, when I said lacrosse had passed baseball in certain regions of the northeast, I was referring strictly to youth participation at the high school and college level. Obviously, lacrosse as a spectator sport is in its infancy, but purely based on my anecdotal evidence, there are more suburban kids who want to play lacrosse these days than baseball. Whether that ever manifests itself in terms of television ratings, who knows.

Ehhh, unless it has changed from when I was a kid, that's not the case. Fairfield had full youth baseball leagues just from the town. The local lacrosse league had to draw from the surrounding area to get an entire youth league. That may have changed because I'm getting old but that was the case when I was a kid. The gap is probably closing but I'd hazard a guess that it's still much larger than you give it credit for.

 

[mike012]

Why would people watch the World Cup if they don't like soccer?

I watch the world cup but would rather have my eyes poked out of my head before I watch an MLS game. I would watch some kids Tball game over MLS

 

[thatguyed]

I saw the header and thought this was about Syracuse.

 

[A10 fan]

There are plenty of baseball players of obvious African descent, they just don't happen to be African Americans. It's kind of like in the NBA, where most of the good white players aren't American either. Kids in the US don't play baseball organically anymore. What I mean by this, is a bunch of kids with a bat and a ball playing on their own, in a field, or even in the street, like they used to do in NYC. Only the fact that Little League is well established in the suburbs keeps the number of American white players from crashing like the number of American black players. There are few leagues in the inner city, which is why the trend away from baseball shows itself so strongly among AA players. Florida, and California are an exception, as there are quite a few leagues in black areas, and those regions do still produce black players.

 

[CTBasketball]

Ehhh, unless it has changed from when I was a kid, that's not the case. Fairfield had full youth baseball leagues just from the town. The local lacrosse league had to draw from the surrounding area to get an entire youth league. That may have changed because I'm getting old but that was the case when I was a kid. The gap is probably closing but I'd hazard a guess that it's still much larger than you give it credit for.

Fairfield University is the only lacrosse source in Fairfield County that does well. They draw well over 1,000 people each night they played and averaged around 1300 fans a night. That's more than some mid-major basketball and a lot more than any college baseball team and maybe even the Bridgeport Bluefish. However, Fairfield's lacrosse program is nationally ranked each year and gets a lot of media hype in the lacrosse world.

Outside of Fairfield lacrosse, the stigma of lacrosse is false and most prefer baseball. Lacrosse is a niche sport. Those who can't play baseball default to lacrosse, been that way forever.

 

[Mike75]

NHL, NBA and MLB all have the same problem - the season is too long, both in number of games and duration. There is a reason why the NFL is so successful - every game matters and the playoffs are over in a month. In fact, they should try and mimic the NFL as much as possible in terms of season and scheduling.

MLB - 162 games is totally unnecessary. The regular season should start in May and end around Labor Day, with the World Series wrapping up around Columbus Day.

NBA and NHL - cut the regular season by a third or half. Playoffs should not take three months and should be over around Easter.

Oh, and lose the 9 pm start times for playoff and championship games. On the weekends, play the games at 4 or 6 pm. Kinda like what the NFL does.

I'm no soccer fan, but have started watching EPL and La Liga casually. I enjoy it, especially EPL. But I have no interest in MLS.

 

[boba]

NHL, NBA and MLB all have the same problem - the season is too long, both in number of games and duration. There is a reason why the NFL is so successful - every game matters and the playoffs are over in a month. In fact, they should try and mimic the NFL as much as possible in terms of season and scheduling.

MLB - 162 games is totally unnecessary. The regular season should start in May and end around Labor Day, with the World Series wrapping up around Columbus Day.

NBA and NHL - cut the regular season by a third or half. Playoffs should not take three months and should be over around Easter.

Oh, and lose the 9 pm start times for playoff and championship games. On the weekends, play the games at 4 or 6 pm. Kinda like what the NFL does.

I'm no soccer fan, but have started watching EPL and La Liga casually. I enjoy it, especially EPL. But I have no interest in MLS.

Couple things off on this idea:
Nothing wrong with the length of the MLB season ('cept that end on Hallowe'en stuff) but the number of games is ridiculous. Fewer games, (150?) would yield a better product as travel and wear would be better managed, but that would mean they need to do something with the stadiums during those off days. So forget that idea.
Your end of the regular NBA season would coincide with March Madness. Yeah that's going to fly in the boardrooms of TBS, CBS, ESPN, and who ever else broadcasts sports.
As for timing in the day of broadcast, it's all to please the sponsors, not for the fans.

 

[champs99and04]

Ehhh, unless it has changed from when I was a kid, that's not the case. Fairfield had full youth baseball leagues just from the town. The local lacrosse league had to draw from the surrounding area to get an entire youth league. That may have changed because I'm getting old but that was the case when I was a kid. The gap is probably closing but I'd hazard a guess that it's still much larger than you give it credit for.

I'm not from Fairfield, so I don't know, you could be right. I'm commenting strictly on my observations from where I'm from and sort of extrapolating that out to a larger hunch on what kids are playing these days in the northeast. Granted, in terms of overall popularity, the gap between baseball and lacrosse is still huge, I just wonder, given the choice, which sport kids would rather play.

 

[champs99and04]

Fairfield University is the only lacrosse source in Fairfield County that does well. They draw well over 1,000 people each night they played and averaged around 1300 fans a night. That's more than some mid-major basketball and a lot more than any college baseball team and maybe even the Bridgeport Bluefish. However, Fairfield's lacrosse program is nationally ranked each year and gets a lot of media hype in the lacrosse world.

Outside of Fairfield lacrosse, the stigma of lacrosse is false and most prefer baseball. Lacrosse is a niche sport. Those who can't play baseball default to lacrosse, been that way forever.

This would make more sense if the sports weren't so vastly different. It's like saying, "kids who can't play basketball default to hockey." They require radically different skill sets and are geared towards completely different types of athletes, IMO.

 

[CallMeBruce]

This would make more sense if the sports weren't so vastly different. It's like saying, "kids who can't play basketball default to hockey." They require radically different skill sets and are geared towards completely different types of athletes, IMO.

This nonsense has been repeated constantly since I started playing in the early 90s. Kids choose lacrosse because it's much more fun to play than baseball.

 

[CTBasketball]

This nonsense has been repeated constantly since I started playing in the early 90s. Kids choose lacrosse because it's much more fun to play than baseball.

This would make more sense if the sports weren't so vastly different. It's like saying, "kids who can't play basketball default to hockey." They require radically different skill sets and are geared towards completely different types of athletes, IMO.

In my experiences, every kid played Little League (9-12 year olds) and the league under that (7-8 year olds). After Little League, vast amounts of players stopped playing baseball and went to lacrosse. This hurt the Babe Ruth/Senior league because they sometimes could only field 5-8 teams. It just so happened every one of those kids that dropped baseball were not good at baseball. Usually right fielders, or utility infielders that played 2 innings in Little League. Those kids went to lacrosse.

It wasn't like an 8 year old saying, "Oh lacrosse is more fun." They just gave up on baseball because they sucked at it.

 

[CallMeBruce]

In my experiences, every kid played Little League (9-12 year olds) and the league under that (7-8 year olds). After Little League, vast amounts of players stopped playing baseball and went to lacrosse. This hurt the Babe Ruth/Senior league because they sometimes could only field 5-8 teams. It just so happened every one of those kids that dropped baseball were not good at baseball. Usually right fielders, or utility infielders that played 2 innings in Little League. Those kids went to lacrosse.

It wasn't like an 8 year old saying, "Oh lacrosse is more fun." They just gave up on baseball because they sucked at it.

If I thought that your anecdote here was 1) relevant or 2) actually accurate, then you'd be right. That's not what it's like anymore. A lot of kids start playing lacrosse at 8-9 years old, like I did.

 

[CTBasketball]

If I thought that your anecdote here was 1) relevant or 2) actually accurate, then you'd be right. That's not what it's like anymore. A lot of kids start playing lacrosse at 8-9 years old, like I did.

Exactly, once they realize baseball isn't for them. You are correct saying that the two are completely different sports. It helps make the transition from baseball to lacrosse easier.

 

[Mike75]

Couple things off on this idea:
Nothing wrong with the length of the MLB season ('cept that end on Hallowe'en stuff) but the number of games is ridiculous. Fewer games, (150?) would yield a better product as travel and wear would be better managed, but that would mean they need to do something with the stadiums during those off days. So forget that idea.
Your end of the regular NBA season would coincide with March Madness. Yeah that's going to fly in the boardrooms of TBS, CBS, ESPN, and who ever else broadcasts sports.
As for timing in the day of broadcast, it's all to please the sponsors, not for the fans.

Good point on March Madness.

I still think they are leaving eyeballs on the table with the late start times. Especially on the weekends. Otherwise the NFL would be doing it too.

 

[Mike75]

In my experiences, every kid played Little League (9-12 year olds) and the league under that (7-8 year olds). After Little League, vast amounts of players stopped playing baseball and went to lacrosse. This hurt the Babe Ruth/Senior league because they sometimes could only field 5-8 teams. It just so happened every one of those kids that dropped baseball were not good at baseball. Usually right fielders, or utility infielders that played 2 innings in Little League. Those kids went to lacrosse.

It wasn't like an 8 year old saying, "Oh lacrosse is more fun." They just gave up on baseball because they sucked at it.

Kids now are playing both to see which one they like more. They actually coordinate the scheduling in our town so the games don't overlap. Once they get to around 10 they make them pick one.

 

[David 76]

NHL & NBA may have seasons that are too long, but the biggest problem is that the season is meaningless.
Then they enter the "playoff season" which is endless. Get them both out of June and let the season eliminate more teams.

 

[tzznandrew]

But the only surface where Nadal is better is clay. That's the only thing he has on Sampras. Sampras was the better player at three of the four major events, and on grass he was a much, much better player.

I'm with you on this.

US Open
Sampras: 5
Nadal: 2
Federer: 5

Wimbledon
Sampras: 7
Nadal: 2
Federer: 7

Australian Open
Sampras: 2
Nadal: 1
Federer: 4

When you compare non-clay courts, Federer is clearly the best, and Nadal is clearly the worst. He looks downright pedestrian in comparison.

Then you add clay.

French Open
Sampras: 0
Nadal: 9
Federer: 1

It's a little unfair, but take away the French Open, and Nadal's 5 non-clay barely makes him relevant historically; take away Wimbledon, and Federer is Bjorg, Sampras is McEnroe. Now, obviously you can't discount clay, but when distinguishing among the best players of all time, you have to parse the details carefully.

Nadal is really really good, probably the 3rd best player, but so much of his success is tied to one event.

 

[whaler11]

I'm with you on this.

US Open
Sampras: 5
Nadal: 2
Federer: 5

Wimbledon
Sampras: 7
Nadal: 2
Federer: 7

Australian Open
Sampras: 2
Nadal: 1
Federer: 4

When you compare non-clay courts, Federer is clearly the best, and Nadal is clearly the worst. He looks downright pedestrian in comparison.

Then you add clay.

French Open
Sampras: 0
Nadal: 9
Federer: 1

It's a little unfair, but take away the French Open, and Nadal's 5 non-clay barely makes him relevant historically; take away Wimbledon, and Federer is Bjorg, Sampras is McEnroe. Now, obviously you can't discount clay, but when distinguishing among the best players of all time, you have to parse the details carefully.

Nadal is really really good, probably the 3rd best player, but so much of his success is tied to one event.

Just don't look at Nadal's record against Federer head to head. Gets messy.

 

[tzznandrew]

Just don't look at Nadal's record against Federer head to head. Gets messy.

It does. On clay, where Nadal is the best ever, he has a 13-2 lead.

Elsewhere, it's 10-8 Nadal...but keep in mind Nadal hit his prime around 07 or 08 (won Wimbledon for the first time in 2008 at 22), and Nadal hit his prime in 2003 (when he was 22)--so when Nadal was reaching his prime, Fed was nearing the end of his.

Also, let's see if Nadal wins a major at 31. His body has been breaking down.

Another way of looking at it.

Finals Appearances by Grand Slam Events

US Open

Sampras: 8
Nadal: 3
Federer: 6

Wimbledon

Sampras: 7
Nadal: 2
Federer: 9

Australian Open

Sampras: 3
Nadal: 3
Federer: 5

French Open

Sampras: 0
Nadal: 9
Federer: 5

 

[guyergym]

Baseball and soccer both have passionate fans, and passionate haters. I've never understood people who hate on a sport because it's not their thing.

I love baseball. It's my favorite sport. The UConn men are my second-favorite team, behind the Red Sox. Even when the Sox aren't in it, I love the sport and got really into the Royals playoff run last year and the great World Series.

People have been trying to write off baseball for 100 years. http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2...ing-nonsense-the-case-for-baseballs-vitality/

But as much as I love baseball and I think its demise is exaggerated, it IS skewing too old and too white. With Bud Selig finally gone, maybe MLB can get some real leadership. The (modest) measures to pick up the pace is a start. It's not the time of games, but the pace of play. They also need to start marketing African-American players, luck Andrew McCutchen and Lorenzo Cain, better.

I also think MLB needs to really help attract kids of ALL races, but especially black. Ask parents, especially mothers, do you REALLY want your kids playing football, or would you rather have them play baseball, where if they make the majors, they have guaranteed contracts, unlike the NFL. And remind them that baseball players don't retire at 20 the way Casey Cochran did.

As for soccer, I think I think it's a good sport, the MLS is doing better than it did, and there definitely is more interest in European leagues than ever -- and that big soccer people have much more interest in that than the MLS. The World Cup has gotten huge, and it should be. With pools it's like a once-every-four-years March Madness, and since everyone except Native Americans has ties to somehwhere else, a lot of people have two teams to root for, the USA and the country of their hertiage.

 

[ucinnc]

It does. On clay, where Nadal is the best ever, he has a 13-2 lead. Elsewhere, it's 10-8 Nadal...but keep in mind Nadal hit his prime around 07 or 08 (won Wimbledon for the first time in 2008 at 22), and Nadal hit his prime in 2003 (when he was 22)--so when Nadal was reaching his prime, Fed was nearing the end of his. Also, let's see if Nadal wins a major at 31. His body has been breaking down.

Agree. The rivalry is tremendous, but that five-year difference in age often gets discounted or overlooked. Granted, Nadal seems to be in his head. But as Andrew says, the Roger of 2006 and the Roger of 2014 are not the same player.

 

[Rocktheworld]

I saw the header and thought this was about Syracuse.

I thought it was about Cleveland

 

[David 76]

Baseball may lack young black players, but it is definitely not too white. It is hugely Latino with a growing smattering of Asians

 

[BUHusky]

I'm with you on this.

US Open
Sampras: 5
Nadal: 2
Federer: 5

Wimbledon
Sampras: 7
Nadal: 2
Federer: 7

Australian Open
Sampras: 2
Nadal: 1
Federer: 4

When you compare non-clay courts, Federer is clearly the best, and Nadal is clearly the worst. He looks downright pedestrian in comparison.

Then you add clay.

French Open
Sampras: 0
Nadal: 9
Federer: 1

It's a little unfair, but take away the French Open, and Nadal's 5 non-clay barely makes him relevant historically; take away Wimbledon, and Federer is Bjorg, Sampras is McEnroe. Now, obviously you can't discount clay, but when distinguishing among the best players of all time, you have to parse the details carefully.

Nadal is really really good, probably the 3rd best player, but so much of his success is tied to one event.

It's hilarious how you and Bruce conveniently throw out anything clay related and then claim you are "parsing the details carefully". Clay is actually really important. It's more important than grass in the modern game. Just look the number of tournaments on clay versus grass.

If you actually "parse the details carefully" you would include all surfaces and then realize that Sampras not getting past the semis of the French is actually a really huge mark against him when having a conversation about best players of all time. His failure to adjust his game to clay can't be overlooked.

Part of the greatness of Federer and Nadal is that both have had large amounts of success on all surfaces. They have learned to adjust their games accordingly. You can't discount how difficult the career grand slam is when having this conversation. Both Nadal and Federer are each one more major away from a double career grand slam. That's absurd. You need to take all that into account you were to actually "parse the details carefully".

Another measure when having this conversation about best players of all time is seeing how players perform on their non-preferred surfaces. It's a measure of how they can make adjustments and adapt to conditions outside of their comfort zone.

Non-preferred surfaces
Nadal: 5 + 1 gold medal
Federer: 1
Sampras: semis

Sorry for actually looking at their resumes as a whole, and not just cherry picking stats.