Author Topic: Freakonomics on Baseball  (Read 1276 times)

Lefty

  • Key Member of the Conspiracy
  • Posts: 3539
    • View Profile
Freakonomics on Baseball
« on: April 28, 2008, 11:41:08 am »
Apparently, baseball is too boring for a whole lot of people.  Some quality suggestions here, especially in the NYT comments (catchers getting 1 sign per pitch, 1-game series, etc...).  I guess the guys who are amazed at the novelty of the infield shift, ("even on a right handed batter"!) didn't watch much of a certain Houston first baseman, or much baseball at all for that matter.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/ideas-for-making-baseball-more-interesting/

and

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120907935062743195.html

You may ask yourself, "How do I work this?"

T. J.

  • Should Have Quit 500 Posts Ago
  • Posts: 1798
    • View Profile
Re: Freakonomics on Baseball
« Reply #1 on: April 28, 2008, 11:58:56 am »
Apparently, baseball is too boring for a whole lot of people.  Some quality suggestions here, especially in the NYT comments (catchers getting 1 sign per pitch, 1-game series, etc...).  I guess the guys who are amazed at the novelty of the infield shift, ("even on a right handed batter"!) didn't watch much of a certain Houston first baseman, or much baseball at all for that matter.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/ideas-for-making-baseball-more-interesting/

and

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120907935062743195.html



My idea doesn't have anything to do with the game itself, but rather how it is televised.  Now that most games are broadcast in widescreen HD, I'd like to see the games televised from a point of view behind the catcher where you could see the game from George and Barbara's seat view.  You miss so much action on TV when your view is limited to the pitcher and catcher.

JimR

  • Contributor
  • High Order of the Ferret
  • *****
  • Posts: 29345
    • View Profile
    • McGinnis, Lochridge & Kilgore, LLP
Re: Freakonomics on Baseball
« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2008, 12:10:30 pm »
yawn
Often wrong, but never in doubt.

EasTexAstro

  • Pope
  • Posts: 5748
    • View Profile
Re: Freakonomics on Baseball
« Reply #3 on: April 28, 2008, 12:14:54 pm »
Maybe it is just me, but it seems like, in 1968, if the World Series was on, you only had a couple of other channels to watch if you weren't interested. Sure, there were still other things to do, but a declining share doesn't mean people are losing interest in baseball necessarily.
It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of 'em was one kinda sombitch or another.

pravata

  • Guest
Re: Freakonomics on Baseball
« Reply #4 on: April 28, 2008, 12:50:03 pm »
Maybe it is just me, but it seems like, in 1968, if the World Series was on, you only had a couple of other channels to watch if you weren't interested. Sure, there were still other things to do, but a declining share doesn't mean people are losing interest in baseball necessarily.

Baseball made $6 billion last year.  2007 Attendance set the record.  There are teams that are already sold out for the entire 2008 season.   Why in the hell does someone who does not like baseball feel the need to tell the industry how to "improve".  Shut up and wait for football season.