NBA = Smart, MLB = Stupid

by user Bobman024

NBA = Smart. MLB = Stupid. It is that simple. When it comes to Web 2.0 and when it comes to fan interaction, the NBA is succeeding, where baseball is flailing about.

When i go to NBA.com, I am looking at a clean, user friendly website. Not only that, but if I wanted too, I can pull any player’s “card” and share it on my website…even better, NBA.com lets me grab their scoreboard and embed it anywhere I want….

The image is here: http://azsportshub.com/nba-smart-mlb-stupid/

To me, the NBA is doing it right. 100%. Their site is clean, readable, and you find something new each visit. On the other hand, mlb.com is losing it’s luster. Although they do have RSS feeds, they don’t offer much fan content outside of that. In fact, the more run-ins I have with mlb.com, the more I don’t want to use it. For images, scores, fantasy, news and anything related to baseball, i go to Yahoo. Why? Because it is cleaner to look at, easier to find what you are looking for and you don’t have to pay for all the extra bells and whistles.

Let’s face it, mlb.com is dying and I see no daylight in sight……

MECUVarsity

975 days ago

Score -1

mlb.com isn't the only thing dying, MLB is dying.

Permalink | Reply

Anonymous Fanatic #1

975 days ago

Score 0

does dying = setting single season attendance records?

Permalink

MECUVarsity

975 days ago

Score 0

Is that total attendance, or average per game? Does that factor in the % capacity, since today's stadiums are larger?

Permalink

Anonymous Fanatic #1

975 days ago

Score 0

i dont see how that is relevant..more people going to games != the sport dying

Permalink

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

975 days ago

Score 0

The % tag is very relevant. If 1000 people see 10 games, it's not as good as 750 people seeing 5 games. So in that case, total attendance is going up, but less people as a % are seeing games. There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.

Permalink

Anonymous Fanatic #1

975 days ago

Score 0

is there a disproportionate number of games being played the last 10 years?

Permalink

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

975 days ago

Score 0

I don't know - just saying that the need to say "as a percentage" is an important thing to justify.

Permalink

MECUVarsity

975 days ago

Score 0

With 2419 games played, there is a larger chance to get the total attendance played. See http://en.wi...s_attendance and compare to the NFL which has 256 games and double the per game attendance.

Permalink

Anonymous Fanatic #1

975 days ago

Score 0

i dont think its fair to compare mlb and nfl per game attendance..nfl only has 16 games, each game means more

Permalink

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

975 days ago

Score 0

That's fair enough when cross-comparing between MLB and NFL. But comparing MLB now to MLB in the past should be fine.

Permalink

MECUVarsity

975 days ago

Score 0

I agree. Unfortunately I cannot find attendance records and total games for seasons past of MLB, only for 2006.

Permalink

Anonymous Fanatic #1

975 days ago

Score 0

MECU, i was going by this

http://www.b...tendance.htm

seemed to have some good info

Permalink

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

975 days ago

Score 0

Having looked at the 1990-2006 statistics, the numbers are pretty negligable. We don't know things like ticket prices, team success etc. that will contribute to attendance. There's no real way of comparing it all. It's really hard to tell what's going on - I suppose you could argue either way really. Some teams are up, some are down... It's just a mishmash. Unless you could do some sort of Product Moment Correlation Coefficient between attendance and time and get a value approaching 1, then I think you'll have to leave it as a no-go statistically.

Permalink

Anonymous Fanatic #2

974 days ago

Score 1

"compare to the NFL which has 256 games and double the per game attendance"

What? You can't be serious? Of course the NFL has double the attendace per game. Most NFL stadiums seat double the capacity of some MLB stadiums.

Permalink

MECUVarsity

975 days ago

Score 0

It's completely relevant, especially since there are more teams. I don't buy your claim that more people are going to games. I think the % attendance would be down. There may be more total numbers, but that's misleading. The Colorado Rockies used to sell-out and set season attendance records. Now they only open parts of the upper deck for big games, like today (season opener) and July 4th fireworks games. When the big draw is other events other than baseball, the sport is dying.

Permalink | Reply

Anonymous Fanatic #1

975 days ago

Score 0

"The Colorado Rockies used to sell-out and set season attendance records." you realize that they have only been playing since 1993? they have also been terrible last 3 years...bad example pal

Permalink

MECUVarsity

975 days ago

Score 0

Please look at: http://en.wi...ance_records If you look at the per-game attendance for "Progression of the home field attendance record", you'll see my point: in 1890 the record was set with 2221/game. The Rockies hold the record with their 1993 of 55350/game.

Permalink

Anonymous Fanatic #1

975 days ago

Score 0

the sample size is the reason...most teams have been playing longer than the 13 years the rockies have been playing for

Permalink

MECUVarsity

975 days ago

Score 0

My point had nothing to do with the Rockies. Just that they are currently the largest season attendance record holder, mainly because they played in Mile High Stadium which is built for football.

Permalink

Anonymous Fanatic #1

975 days ago

Score 0

ok, i hear ya...i just think that for the most part, teams are increasing their numbers

Permalink

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

975 days ago

Score 2

The oft-criticised NHL are doing a wonderful thing by posting 3 or 4 minute highlight clips of all of the games on YouTube. That's wonderful for international fans! Their site is also good. I used to like the highlights on MLB.com, but now you have to pay (or last I checked you did. Similarly, NHL.com lets you listen to games on the radio for free, you have to pay on MLB or NFL for Field Pass. The king of all sporting websites is Cricinfo. You maybe can't embed them, but every single game of cricket, player, umpire, administrator and broadcaster has its own archive. And it has guests presenting downloadable shows talking about cricket. Also, for a live game of cricket, there is often somebody giving a ball by ball written commentary of what is happening so you know what's going on. Beats everything else hands down - it's a bit slower than other sites, but it's worth the wait.

Permalink | Reply

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

975 days ago

Score 0

I didn't make Cricinfo sound as good as it was - for every single game of cricket since about 1870 ever played at a decent level. Every batsmans score. You can't log into MLB.com and find out if the Number 3 in the Yankees 1909 lineup did in the 1st Inning did in the first matchup against Boston Red Sox of the season. If I was so inclined, I could tell you who scored how many runs in the first Test Match between England and Australia in the 1890s.

Permalink

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

975 days ago

Score 0

To prove my point - That took what... three minutes?

Permalink

Anonymous Fanatic #1

975 days ago

Score 1

MLB attendance since 1990

54,823,741

56,783,759

55,643,062

70,257,938

50,010,016

50,469,236

60,097,381

62,899,062

70,601,147

70,103,204

72,702,420

72,567,108

67,944,389

67,630,052

72,968,953

74,385,295

75,959,167

can you honestly tell me that this is because of more teams?

Permalink | Reply

MECUVarsity

975 days ago

Score -1

Yes. How many expansion teams were added in the 90s? Let's see.. the Rockies in 1993.... Also, divide the total attendance by the total number of games played for a probably more accurate number to compare seasons.

Permalink

Anonymous Fanatic #1

975 days ago

Score -1

so 20 million more fans can be attributed to more games being played?

Permalink

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

975 days ago

Score 0

How much has MLB expanded since 1990? When have these new teams come in?

Permalink

Davis21wylieMVP

975 days ago

Score 0

I would like to point out that MLB Advanced Media, which runs MLB.com as well as MLB.tv, is an unquestioned success. More than anything else, MLBAM has been the catalyst for MLB's recent economic growth -- a windfall reflected by the record-setting contracts to free agents this past winter. If anybody's been doing it right, it's been MLB.com and MLBAM...

Permalink | Reply

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

975 days ago

Score 0

It's an unquestioned success from a business and economic perspective. It's a great business model. But I don't think the NHL are in a position to copy that plan, demand is too low. But it's certainly much better for attracting new NHL fans than attracting new MLB fans. E.g. someone in Britain may see an NHL game on YouTube and think it's good and get into the game, which is good. A British MLB fan may see a video and see a think to pay and head straight for the x in the corner. Which is bad for the game internationally.

Permalink

TartanVarsity Captain

975 days ago

Score 0

They are completely different products being offered. Millions of people pay for MLB's online services through their website. No way could the NHL get away with forcing people to pay for games. You can't compare the two.

Permalink

LetsPlayTwoPee Wee

973 days ago

Score 0

If you want to see a dying sport, look at the NHL. The MLB is setting attendance records, whether you want to attribute it to expansions or not. This is a sport that is thriving right now. We're 3 games into the season and there's more buzz about it than anything else in the sports world. It's like the NBA, NFL and NHL all just completely disappeared. Everyone forgot about March Madness like *that*. This is not a dying sport. Just because the website isn't as user friendly as the NBA's website means nothing. Sorry, it just doesn't.

Permalink | Reply