2018 MLB Postseason Discussion Thread

[TheLeviathan]

 

MLB will soon be trailing the NHL or MLS or whatever in US national TV ratings.

 

MLB doesn't have to trail the NHL or MLS, once it's in that group it's already a problem.

 

You keep accusing me of an angle on this, but you clearly have one of your own.  I'm not trying to put any other spin on this story but this: another ratings dip, with these two markets involved, is not good news.  If you want to continue splitting hairs over that, you're on your own.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

MLB doesn't have to trail the NHL or MLS, once it's in that group it's already a problem.

 

Is it actually in that group, or close to being in it? Or is it closer to the NBA and NCAA, and staying around there for the foreseeable future? Genuinely curious, if you have any references. I see a lot of ratings for individual years and series, but not a whole lot about long-term trends (and how meaningful they are, compared to overall TV viewership decline).

 

 

You keep accusing me of an angle on this, but you clearly have one of your own.  I'm not trying to put any other spin on this story but this: another ratings dip, with these two markets involved, is not good news.

 

I don't have an angle, it's just that this "spin" seems rather incorrect/misleading -- it's not "another ratings dip", it's back to the 2008-2015 status quo. All this particular news item confirms is that the 2016 ratings jump wasn't permanent, particularly for a less-competitive series, which shouldn't be surprising or all that troubling to anyone on its own. I don't think that's splitting hairs at all, but obviously we disagree so I'll drop that particular line of discussion.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Remaining stagnant probably isn't the best course of action either.

Once you are a billion dollar industry, stagnant TV ratings probably don't hurt that much. Especially since there are ratings challenges all across the spectrum of TV programming, and the sport's strength appears to be local anyway.

 

And I don't think it's all that likely that MLB can exert a whole lot of control over modern national TV ratings trends either. Sure, I'd personally love faster paced, shorter games, but to the extent they could improve ratings, I'm not sure if you could differentiate the effect from countless other small factors. MLB can sell ad time between pitches now, sadly.

[Vanimal46]

Once you are a billion dollar industry, stagnant TV ratings probably don't hurt that much. Especially since there are ratings challenges all across the spectrum of TV programming, and the sport's strength appears to be local anyway.

 

And I don't think it's all that likely that MLB can exert a whole lot of control over modern national TV ratings trends either. Sure, I'd personally love faster paced, shorter games, but to the extent they could improve ratings, I'm not sure if you could differentiate the effect from countless other small factors. MLB can sell ad time between pitches now, sadly.

Sure, the league is getting the same paycheck from their TV deal whether 300 million watch it or 1 person.

 

In a way they can control TV ratings and interest by fixing the problems in the game. There's no doubt in my mind people are getting tired of the pace of play, constant pitching changes, and lack of balls in play. It really is a different game compared to 5 years ago, and it's not trending in the right direction... 3 true outcomes is boring!

[TheLeviathan]

 

Is it actually in that group, or close to being in it? Or is it closer to the NBA and NCAA, and staying around there for the foreseeable future? Genuinely curious, if you have any references. I see a lot of ratings for individual years and series, but not a whole lot about long-term trends (and how meaningful they are, compared to overall TV viewership decline).

 

 

 

I don't have an angle, it's just that this "spin" seems rather incorrect/misleading -- it's not "another ratings dip", it's back to the 2008-2015 status quo. All this particular news item confirms is that the 2016 ratings jump wasn't permanent, particularly for a less-competitive series, which shouldn't be surprising or all that troubling to anyone on its own. I don't think that's splitting hairs at all, but obviously we disagree so I'll drop that particular line of discussion.

 

It is not in the MLS or NHL group yet.  They are roughly similar to the NBA at this point, battling for the second spot.  The unhealthy angle is more in the demographics, social media, etc.

 

What makes this news unwelcome is that you'd have liked to retain the ratings of last year.  I think everyone understands a drop-off from Cubs-Indians.  That was an unsustainable spike.  The problem is that there was a drop last year and another drop this year.  That would indicate that some of the people you got to stay around and watch a year after the Cubs run, abandoned the Series two years later.  That means that roughly 14% of people gave baseball another shot last year, but said the hell with it this year.

 

Maybe they come back next year and it was the boredom of the series, but the general numbers on baseball do not indicate that optimism should be the default setting on such trends.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Sure, the league is getting the same paycheck from their TV deal whether 300 million watch it or 1 person.

 

In a way they can control TV ratings and interest by fixing the problems in the game. There's no doubt in my mind people are getting tired of the pace of play, constant pitching changes, and lack of balls in play. It really is a different game compared to 5 years ago, and it's not trending in the right direction... 3 true outcomes is boring!

I totally agree on an aesthetics level. But on a practical level, I just can't believe our personal aesthetics are really any kind of notable ratings/moneymaking difference.

[Otto von Ballpark]

This year's postseason was pretty dismal all around, from an excitement/interest standpoint, compared to last year. Not just WS, but CS rounds too. I don't expect that was the primary factor, but it probably didn't help.

 

Maybe there is some BoSox burnout too? I was surprised their 2013 series ratings weren't all that great either. And they were in control of each series this postseason, and clearly no one thinks they are cursed anymore.

 

I suspect we'll get more of the same low ratings next year too, barring NYY/Cubs and some extra postseason excitement.

[TheLeviathan]

It's not so much that the ratings were low as much as they lost viewers after they had an expected dip.  If I'm MLB, I was thrilled to retain some of the 2016 numbers last year and would've liked to cement those going forward.  To lose another significant chunk of them this year isn't good news.

 

Maybe it was the bland series, certainly possible.  Whatever the reason, it's the kind of thing you don't want to see.  It shouldn't be controversial to say the news isn't good, especially when MLB itself (per fangraphs) is confused/taken aback by the numbers.

[Otto von Ballpark]

It shouldn't be controversial to say the news isn't good, especially when MLB itself (per fangraphs) is confused/taken aback by the numbers.

I don't know. Manfred also says he is confused about why the games take so long (or why the no-pitch intentional walk and mound visit limits didn't help). I think "confused"/concerned is his default public position about any topic.

 

Seriously, I think MLB will always give lip service to shortening games, improving TV ratings, making the ballpark experience more affordable and family-friendly -- but they know they don't really need to pursue any of those goals as much as our segment of fans would like to believe. (And given their position as a monopoly in the sport, with taxpayer-funded stadiums all over, they are probably right, unfortunately.)

[TheLeviathan]

I agree it's lip service, but eventually the cash cow they have (TV money) is going to need to be renegotiated.  They'll want to be a lot closer to the NBA deal than the NHL one when that time comes.

[biggentleben]

 

At this point....how long has it been since the NL was even close to the same caliber as the AL?

 

I know they win WS (small sample size), but overall.....aren't we showing again why there is quite a disparity between the leagues right now?  I'm not sure, in terms of talent, I'd favor any NL team over even the Oakland A's much less the Yanks, Sox, Astros, Indians, etc.

 

Not at all. The AL bottom was ridiculously worse this year, which allowed the AL top to be ridiculously better via record. In depth of team, I think you could easily make arguments for the leagues being even if not swayed NL in overall talent on rosters. The issue is right now, there are 3-4 monsters in the AL and 5-6 horrible teams, and that allows everyone to look a lot better on W/L.

[biggentleben]

 

That almost seemed too easy for Boston. It was a disappointing series in my opinion, but Boston was just much better. Hopefully they won't be so good next year.

 

Boston has won 4 championships in the last 15 seasons.

 

They have lost 3 games in those 4 World Series.

 

If you want an exciting World Series, don't include Boston.

[biggentleben]

 

This WS was a dud and the ratings show it. I heard on the radio this morning this WS was down 40% from the year the Cubs won it.

I agree with the reasoning in the Yahoo article. The narratives weren't compelling, and MLB didn't counter back with fans complaining that the game is broken and needs to be fixed.

 

...and what would have fixed this World Series?

 

The narrative for most of the country on this World Series was "buy your way to the Series". It tunes out a lot of people who now have competing options in their sports that they did not when the games were a bigger deal.

 

Another narrative? You can't expect the fans to tune into network games after putting them on (often inaccessible) cable channels for 3 rounds.

 

A final narrative of the most publicity surrounding anything heading into the game was how much of a jerk Manny Machado has been this postseason isn't exactly going to win over the non-baseball fan to watch.

 

There were great narratives....30 years since the last Dodgers WS win, Dodgers returning to the Series, Dodgers and Red Sox meeting again for a championship after 102 years, etc. Those were after thoughts (if even mentioned) in the non-baseball-focused media on the matchup, and it showed.

[biggentleben]

 

2016 was pretty special because of the epic Cubs situation, and I think 2017 benefitted from that tailwind boost. Those clearly seem to be the outliers. If you check the graph I posted above, there's nothing unusual about 2018 in the context of 2008-2015.

 

The modern media landscape is very different now than it was before. I'm not convinced TV ratings are particularly meaningful for judging much of anything anymore, particularly for sports programming. I know you believe that these ratings are another example of baseball failing to gain young fans which portends doom for the sport, but there's a whole host of other factors at play with these ratings that make it pretty difficult to demonstrate that connection.

 

2017 had a HUGE benefit of the Houston Astros being in after the Houston hurricane...

[Mike Sixel]

I agree, hiding the playoffs on cable channels is a killer for building up to the WS. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

I agree, hiding the playoffs on cable channels is a killer for building up to the WS.

Seems doubtful. TBS is part of virtually every cable/satellite/streaming package, and FS1 is pretty darn close too. MLB Network is a little harder to find -- but they only carried 2 games, all the way back in the division series. Virtually every regular season game is already on pay TV too.

 

I am an antenna guy, and personally I would love if more games were on free TV. But I am under no illusion that it is all that important in terms of visibility/interest/revenue in 2018.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Not at all. The AL bottom was ridiculously worse this year, which allowed the AL top to be ridiculously better via record. In depth of team, I think you could easily make arguments for the leagues being even if not swayed NL in overall talent on rosters. The issue is right now, there are 3-4 monsters in the AL and 5-6 horrible teams, and that allows everyone to look a lot better on W/L.

 

Baltimore and KC were historically bad, but I think in part that happened because of the quality of the AL.  The soft middle of hte NL doesn't impress me at all.  That's how a terrible team like the Marlins can look like they aren't as bad as the Royals/Orioles, when in reality they absolutely are.  (There is no way in hell the Mets even sniff 70 wins in the AL much less nearly get to .500)

 

Records are contextual and a bad place to start making such an argument.  The overall talent in the AL is just much stronger.  And deeper.

[biggentleben]

 

Seems doubtful. TBS is part of virtually every cable/satellite/streaming package, and FS1 is pretty darn close too. MLB Network is a little harder to find -- but they only carried 2 games, all the way back in the division series. Virtually every regular season game is already on pay TV too.

I am an antenna guy, and personally I would love if more games were on free TV. But I am under no illusion that it is all that important in terms of visibility/interest/revenue in 2018.

 

FS1 is not out there, though. It's not part of a lot of packages.

[biggentleben]

 

Baltimore and KC were historically bad, but I think in part that happened because of the quality of the AL.  The soft middle of hte NL doesn't impress me at all.  That's how a terrible team like the Marlins can look like they aren't as bad as the Royals/Orioles, when in reality they absolutely are.  (There is no way in hell the Mets even sniff 70 wins in the AL much less nearly get to .500)

 

Records are contextual and a bad place to start making such an argument.  The overall talent in the AL is just much stronger.  And deeper.

 

I'll take deGrom and Syndergaard over basically any AL duo outside of Houston, perhaps, maybe Cleveland. Just those two guys at the top of the rotation can lead a lot of hot streaks, and two long hot streaks are exactly what left them near .500. Add in Zack Wheeler pitching up to his potential and Steven Matz when he was healthy, and that's one of the best rotations in baseball.

 

You can downplay it all you want, but I posted an article earlier in here with the statistics showing how the NL playoff teams played like a 95-win team against .500 or better teams. AL playoff teams were roughly an 85-win team, and that was only because the Red Sox were at a 100+ win pace. Multiple AL teams had sub-.500 records against teams with a record above.500.

 

It was not just the Orioles and Royals. Four of the top 5 picks next June will be AL teams (3 in the AL Central, which is why a lot of people thought the Indians were quite overrated). Not terribly surprising that 4 of the top 5 were also AL. However, when you get to the top 10, it balances out (technically 6-5 as Tampa Bay and Atlanta are tied for the 10th best record). The bottom 10 are 6 AL and 4 NL.

[Otto von Ballpark]

FS1 is not out there, though. It's not part of a lot of packages.

It seems to be a part of most major packages. Here are some estimates from 2015:

 

https://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/reference/list-of-how-many-homes-each-cable-network-is-in-as-of-february-2015/

 

TBS was at 82.9% of households with a television. Basically the same as CNN, Weather Channel, etc. -- so virtually every cable/satellite/streaming subscriber has TBS.

 

FS1 was at 72.9% overall, similar to Fox News, Hallmark, NatGeo -- those aren't quite universal but still pretty common. That's 88% of the TBS figure.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'll take deGrom and Syndergaard over basically any AL duo outside of Houston, perhaps, maybe Cleveland. Just those two guys at the top of the rotation can lead a lot of hot streaks, and two long hot streaks are exactly what left them near .500. Add in Zack Wheeler pitching up to his potential and Steven Matz when he was healthy, and that's one of the best rotations in baseball.

 

You can downplay it all you want, but I posted an article earlier in here with the statistics showing how the NL playoff teams played like a 95-win team against .500 or better teams. AL playoff teams were roughly an 85-win team, and that was only because the Red Sox were at a 100+ win pace. Multiple AL teams had sub-.500 records against teams with a record above.500.

 

All record analysis has built-in contextual issues.  I'm arguing that most NL records are mirages.  Telling me how they played against other teams teams above .500 means nothing because it was padded against softies like Arizona, Philly, Pitt, Washington, etc. The reason teams like Philly and Arizona were able to pretend to be contenders as long as they were is because that underbelly is super soft in the NL.  

 

 

You're not going to agree because I know you have a personal attachment to the NL.  That's fine, but it was evidently clear that the top AL teams were on another level.  And having been subjected to Diamondback games most of hte year, I laugh - laugh I say - at the notion that the NL is anything other than the B level right now.  

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Seems doubtful. TBS is part of virtually every cable/satellite/streaming package, and FS1 is pretty darn close too. MLB Network is a little harder to find -- but they only carried 2 games, all the way back in the division series. Virtually every regular season game is already on pay TV too.

I am an antenna guy, and personally I would love if more games were on free TV. But I am under no illusion that it is all that important in terms of visibility/interest/revenue in 2018.

 

We'll just have to disagree......and having every regular season game on pay tv doesn't help either. 

[biggentleben]

 

All record analysis has built-in contextual issues.  I'm arguing that most NL records are mirages.  Telling me how they played against other teams teams above .500 means nothing because it was padded against softies like Arizona, Philly, Pitt, Washington, etc. The reason teams like Philly and Arizona were able to pretend to be contenders as long as they were is because that underbelly is super soft in the NL.  

 

 

You're not going to agree because I know you have a personal attachment to the NL.  That's fine, but it was evidently clear that the top AL teams were on another level.  And having been subjected to Diamondback games most of hte year, I laugh - laugh I say - at the notion that the NL is anything other than the B level right now.  

 

No, I'm going to not agree because I look at baseball in general. Many things in baseball have become as divided as our political landscape. The NL/AL, DH/no-/DH grouping is sadly one of the obvious ones.

[TheLeviathan]

Perhaps, but since I pretty regularly watch both leagues where I am now....the difference is stark IMO.  And it's not about style of play or any of those issues - they're just not as talented.  Not as deep.  I watched an Arizona team that was probably worse than the Twins masquerade a playoff contender for four months on the strength of playing the soft middle of the NL.

 

It's not an NBA West vs. East disparity, but it's a disparity nevertheless IMO.

[biggentleben]

 

Perhaps, but since I pretty regularly watch both leagues where I am now....the difference is stark IMO.  And it's not about style of play or any of those issues - they're just not as talented.  Not as deep.  I watched an Arizona team that was probably worse than the Twins masquerade a playoff contender for four months on the strength of playing the soft middle of the NL.

 

It's not an NBA West vs. East disparity, but it's a disparity nevertheless IMO.

 

Do you truly believe the Diamondbacks are thinner than the Tampa Bay Rays or Oakland Athletics? Those two teams were the #4 and 6 team by record in the American League, one making the playoffs and one competing to the last week of the season (whereas the "soft" teams you mention were out of the running fairly early in September in the NL).

 

I personally thought the top 3 of the AL was better this year, with only the Dodgers on par in roster depth, but the depth of the NL was truly much better, and I'd put the leagues overall even in 2018.

[TheLeviathan]

Do you truly believe the Diamondbacks are thinner than the Tampa Bay Rays or Oakland A's

Yes. Hell, the Twins are better too.

[biggentleben]

 

Yes. Hell, the Twins are better too.

 

That's where we won't agree at all. Injuries ripped through the Diamondbacks this season, but Greinke, Corbin, Ray, and Godfrey when healthy is definitely a top 10 1-4 in the league. The Diamondbacks have tremendous roster flexibility and depth, but losing Jake Lamb, assumed their #4/#5 hitter in the lineup, Taijuan Walker, who would make the rotation one of the elite in the game, and Steven Souza, a defensive stud in the outfield who brings 20/20 potential when healthy, all for significant time is huge for any team's depth.

 

Goldschmidt is one of the elite in the entire game, Marte is a very solid offensive player (though I think many miss his overall excellence offensively because of his lesser fantasy impact), Pollock was one of the most dynamic players at the plate when healthy, and then they have multiple guys with multiple position ability like Chris Owings, Daniel Descalso, and even were able to move Brandon Drury due to the depth they had in positional flexible guys.

 

Their bullpen had one elite arm in Bradley with plenty of depth.

 

I'm not saying they were at the level of seeing a guy like JD Martinez get shuffled out of a spot, but they were not crap for sure.

[TheLeviathan]

I didn't say they were crap.  They just aren't good.  

 

And yet, by playing the soft NL, they were leading a division with the Dodgers for most of the season.  As soon as they stopped playing patsies like they did the first four months, they got exposed.  

 

That's sorta my point - outside of a handful of teams in the NL (none of whom are even elite, just not garbage) - most of the league is just not very good.  Their records can't reflect that because all these soft, not-very-good teams end up playing most of their games against each other.

[Nine of twelve]

Regarding the AL vs NL debate, the record of the NL in interleague play this past season was 158-142. This was the first time since 2003 the NL won more games than it lost.

[biggentleben]

 

I didn't say they were crap.  They just aren't good.  

 

And yet, by playing the soft NL, they were leading a division with the Dodgers for most of the season.  As soon as they stopped playing patsies like they did the first four months, they got exposed.  

 

That's sorta my point - outside of a handful of teams in the NL (none of whom are even elite, just not garbage) - most of the league is just not very good.  Their records can't reflect that because all these soft, not-very-good teams end up playing most of their games against each other.

 

Unlike the AL, where 3-5 teams are good, and they pad their records beating up on truly crap teams?

 

The Indians would not have won a single division in the NL this year. They had a great starting staff and two of the top MVP contenders, but from there to their next quality player is a HUGE drop-off. Without the crap of the AL Central, they're barely a .500 club.