You could always replace the Fox audio with ESPN radio.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
TV Ratings: World Series Opener Hits 5-Year Low
- Thread starter Y2kTheNewOldies
- Start date
You could always replace the Fox audio with ESPN radio.
MLB can't win against the NFL despite it being a World Series game. Yes, perhaps more major market teams would increase the numbers, but don't forget Houston and Washington are both top 10 tv markets. There may be some increased interest this week when there is no NFL (or SNL) competition. As in, if the Nats blow it in game 6, it will be one of the worst chokes in the history of the series. If they win, then game 7 will likely bring an audience rebound.
11 teams have come from 0-2 down to win the World Series. Five have come from 1-3 down. So it happens, on average, once or twice a decade. Even if the Nats do lose later today, if they do so in the meek manner they've lost the last two games I would argue that they were simply beaten by a superior team, one that probably should have won Game 1 and nearly did against a Nats bullpen that was one of the worst in their league in the regular season. Game 2 is the outlier here.
"Choke" would be a harsh word to use on a team that only measured up to its opponent in the quality of its top two starting pitchers, and even then, one would have had to give a slight edge to Cole and Verlander over Strasburg and Scherzer coming in. And now Scherzer is injured and the No. 3 starter, Corbin, has been used as a relief pitcher because the manager -- justifiably -- doesn't trust most of his relievers. If the Astros lose these next two games at home, especially if they blow late leads in both, that would be a huge surprise and, I'd argue, a far more historic choke than Washington losing from 2-0 up.
Come to think of it, this World Series has already been historic in that the home team has lost all five games so far. That has never happened even once in Series history. It also has contributed to the generally flat feel of the Series so far. Winners celebrating in front of a nearly silent crowd, a good portion of which has already left the ballpark, is not a good visual.
Last edited:
In 1996, Road teams won 5 straight games. The Yankees beat Atlanta in six games winning the last 4.
Baseball ratings are down for several reasons. Dreadfully long games with extra long commercial breaks. The game itself doesn't connect with the short attention spans of younger demos. Attendance has also been way down in some markets.
"Choking" is an over used cliche. Does every team that loses a series choke? It's a best of 7. Usually, the better team wins in that format...
You're right. This Series has only tied the record. I misheard the statistic when it was mentioned on the radio broadcast of Game 5 to which I was listening.
Neither have anything to do with ratings. The length of the breaks are controlled by MLB. They aren't any longer than they were last year or a few years ago. The breaks in baseball aren't any longer than breaks in football, which are also controlled by the league. But yes, the games have all been boring, primarily decided in the early innings. Home runs are the only excitement in baseball, and there have been fewer home runs during the Series than the regular season. Fox keeps replaying the few bits of excitement through the game in an attempt to retain viewer interest. But it really doesn't help.
They shouldn't be the only excitement in baseball, but that's what the game has become. If the balls have been juiced in a wrongheaded attempt to provide longer and more frequent homers, as if somehow that is going to turn the video game generation into fans of a live, deliberate sport, then the powers that be are idiots. Personally, I'm convinced that the prevalence of analytics-driven shifts has caused batters to subscribe to the launch-angle philosophy, which is basically to hit every ball in the air with a full, powerful swing ... or miss the pitch entirely and try again until you've either succeeded or struck out. The ball may be livelier, but that might not be the most significant factor.
This sort of baseball is far different than the game we saw in the steroid era that peaked after the 1994 strike. Baseball then was full of hits of all sorts, and every team had singles and doubles hitters in the lineup. While chemically enhanced, the product then was genuinely entertaining because not everyone was trying to be Bonds or Sosa or McGwire. Now there are .220-hitting catchers who stumble into a hanging slider every 40 at-bats or so and poke it over the fence (while striking out 20 times) being somehow seen as functional parts of an offense because they're not hitting the ball on the ground and into double plays.
This sport has gone in cycles, and the current one is the most distressing yet, because it's supported by analytics' cold, hard numbers and apparently cares nothing about entertaining the paying customers or attracting home viewers. Maybe the millennials and future generations will never be fans. All real-life spectator sports except, perhaps, pro basketball -- which often looks staged and depends more on off-court soap opera than actual game play for its appeal -- are losing ground among younger demos to online gaming, to the point that rooms full of pasty-faced mama's boys who spend 23 hours a day in the basement are suddenly showing up on TV demonstrating their prowess in virtually killing pixels that look like people in great numbers while other pasty-faced mama's boys sit at home watching them play. I'm not so sure this is the low point of the cycle, or if it's not part of the cycle at all but rather is the new normal.
The breaks are almost a minute longer between half innings this year. It stands to reason that if games are ending at Midnight, it will impact ratings. People are probably tuning out by the 5th inning. Others are not watching it all. Some people like home runs, but baseball purists think the game is more than that. Pitching is generally better in the post season, which means fewer home runs anyway...
According to this article, the rules were changed last year regarding mound visits and breaks between innings. I haven't seen anything that says any of this changed for 2019:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...speed-up-how-long-it-takes-to-play-a-mlb-game
As I said, the breaks are determined by MLB.
It's been mentioned that the breaks are longer in the postseason than in the regular season. 2:55, I believe, while the regular season was 2:05 or 2:10. I'll try to source it for you, as I've seen it in several places.
Got it!
Also in 2015, timers were installed in Major League stadiums to measure the break time between innings and pitching changes. MLB lowered the time between innings to 2 minutes for local broadcasts and nationally televised games in 2019. MLB had instituted times of 2 minutes, 5 seconds for local broadcasts and 2 minutes, 25 seconds for nationally televised games in 2016, decreasing these times by 20 seconds from where they were previously. Prior to the 2018 season, MLB established a separate time of 2 minutes, 55 seconds for tiebreaker and postseason games.
Source: http://m.mlb.com/glossary/rules/pace-of-play
Also in 2015, timers were installed in Major League stadiums to measure the break time between innings and pitching changes. MLB lowered the time between innings to 2 minutes for local broadcasts and nationally televised games in 2019. MLB had instituted times of 2 minutes, 5 seconds for local broadcasts and 2 minutes, 25 seconds for nationally televised games in 2016, decreasing these times by 20 seconds from where they were previously. Prior to the 2018 season, MLB established a separate time of 2 minutes, 55 seconds for tiebreaker and postseason games.
Source: http://m.mlb.com/glossary/rules/pace-of-play
That's correct, but those rules were set last year, as indicated in my link.
The other poster said they're longer this year, and that's not true.
Ah, so you did. Oops.
You know, a high-scoring, close game full of hits and loud outs and spectacular infield play -- and yes, maybe a few home runs -- can run 4 hours and not leave many people complaining that it was too long or boring. The problem today is that we have 4-1 games with less than 15 hits for both teams combined approaching the 4-hour mark. Strikeouts are time-consuming, walks are time-consuming, mid-inning pitching changes are time-consuming, 3-minute commercial breaks are time-consuming. You hit on the main reason ratings are down this year early on -- neither team has a national following; the Red Sox and Dodgers do.
As of next season, pitchers who enter the game mid-inning will have to face a minimum of three batters. This should shave off some time, but probably not much. And I don't know if it's been OK'd for the postseason or just the regular season.
One thing I've noticed is there have been fewer pitching changes in this world series. In fact, I've wondered why the Nationals have stuck with their starter as long as they did. After a pitcher gives up a couple of 2-run homers, perhaps it's time for a change. But that's not how they've played the game. Partly because the bull pens aren't that deep for these two teams.
So far the road team has won every game, so Nats in 7 is not ruled out.
Given that at the time we only had 3 or 4 choices, the numbers comparatively would have been quite high.
Also you were not flooded with televised baseball. You got the Game of the Week and perhaps 12-20 games
of your hometown team televised locally. There was not the oversaturation. it was more like appointment viewing.
You had fewer teams. But you still had the teams with big national followings (Yankees, Dodgers).
Plus teams that had very large regional followings (Reds, Cardinals, Braves). Living in Pittsburgh you
almost never got to see the American League. You'd read great things in the sports pages about Rod Carew
out in Minnesota, and your only chance to see him might be on Game of the Week, once every other year.
I recall TV GUIDE saying NBC averaged a 6 rating in 1989, while ABC, which moved its Monday night games to Thursdays, was in the basement. CBS never came close to equaling NBC.
The 1989 World Series was on ABC, not NBC. Look up "World Series Earthquake". It hit before Game 3 in San Francisco at 8:04 PM Eastern. Game 3 would be held 10 days after the fact. I believe Oakland quietly swept the Series.
Outside of the late Jack Buck, I thought CBS' coverage of MLB was lackluster (1990 to 1993).
Outside of the late Jack Buck, I thought CBS' coverage of MLB was lackluster (1990 to 1993).
I believe "onairb2014" was referring to the regular season ratings of NBC, not the World Series. And you are right, the '89 Series was on ABC. It was Al Michaels who cut short his standard pregame setup monologue with "We're having an ear---" and the sound and picture were lost.
That's correct. Game 3 and 4 ended up being played at the Oakland Coliseum. Candlestick Park was damaged in the Quake. All 4 games were played in Oakland with the A's sweeping in a subdued series...
- Status