Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
IMU wrote:
And newspapers don't understand why they are dying?
You can find better constructed opinions on hundreds of free sites around the internet.
The guy isn't a baseball fan, but what do you disagree with besides the idiotic statement regarding "30 seconds of action"?
I feel as if I shouldn't even give this 'article' 5 seconds of my time, but to be brief:
Quote:
We pretend that players are devoted to their teams and their cities. When, in reality, the average player has the same deep loyalty to his team that your average hooker has to whoever is buying her drinks at the moment.
This may portray many athletes, more now than ever, but is a generalization that is inaccurate for many players. Kobe Bryant is one example (good interview with Bill Simmons). Lebron James is another. Many players take hometown discounts, many players prioritize playing near home. James Shields just did this. Any time you start an article with a terrible generalization, you're gonna have a bad time.
Quote:
We pretend that the games matter and that each game is a test of skill, when top players turn out to be as juiced as racehorses and the only crime is being found out.
See above.
Quote:
Fiction one: The rooftop owners, the Lakeview Baseball Club and Skybox, who sued to stop the team from erecting advertising and giant video screens that they claim would block their views and thus hurt business.
What views? You mean the tiny ants at home plate? And what makes them think that the businessmen gathering to drink beer and gobble hot dogs and duck their responsibilities for an afternoon care about watching the game directly? The people packing the bars around Wrigley don’t have any views; they’re all watching the game on the nearest flat screen.
This is false. The view isn't about the details, it is about the atmosphere of being there. You cannot tell if a pitch was on the black or not. True. But you're an 'overlord' of the entire ballpark. I've been on the rooftops about five times - I would rather be in the ballpark. But the players aren't ants. If you want to watch the game, you can. There are worse spots to be in the 200 section than sitting on a rooftop. While I am a huge fan of the videoboards and Wrigley construction, it will block some of the rooftop views. And that is a legitimate gripe...if there are no solid views of the game in the ballpark, suddenly it is just another rooftop in Chicago. And "just another rooftop" can't charge $150 a head.
Quote:
Heck, half the fans inside the ballpark don’t watch the game — not that there’s ever much of a game to watch. At any given time half the fans are lining up to get beer or dispose of it, wandering the concourses or checking out their phones, and half miss the 30 seconds of actual action that occur in any given three-hour baseball game.
This blogger has never been to Wrigley field, or watched a baseball game.
Quote:
The mistake the rooftop owners made was in drawing attention to the possibly obscured views. Who cares? Sure, some patrons might complain they can’t actually see the plate. Buy ‘em a free beer and tell them that’s how it goes and they’ll shrug and be happy. You’re paying for ambiance, or what ambiance will be left after the Ricketts are done wrecking Wrigley and vicinity. It’s as if, unable to relocate to Addison, the family has decided to bring Addison to Wrigleyville, transforming an urban gem into Disney’s Baseball Experience.
And has never been to Addison nor Disney.
Quote:
Which leads us to the second illusion: the charmed notion that the money from the additional advertising will go toward getting better players who will propel the Cubs to a World Series. Pretty to think so. But from the ham-handed, arrogant, kill-the-golden-goose managerial style of the Ricketts clan, I can’t imagine that happening, nor imagine a providence so perverse that it would allow Tom Ricketts to smile his smug, frozen, lipless smile in triumph over a pennant win. Fate is cruel, but I don’t see it as being that cruel.
Ricketts took on debt from the purchase of the team. He has bills he needs to pay. Of course, revenues go toward paying down debt. But a huge increase in revenue will lead to increased salaries and improved baseball related facilities and scouting. This is how professional sports has worked for the longest time. Ricketts is no cheaper than any other owner. No owner wants a team in the red. It is still a business.
Quote:
My guess is their business will be fine. The Law of Ironic Bad Publicity states that controversies over potential flaws draw far more people to a product than are repelled by the flaw. If I sold a soft drink, “Neil’s Special Elixir” and authorities were concerned it contained some herb that might cause cardiac arrest, the number of people who would learn about my product’s existence from the bad publicity and flock to buy it before it was pulled from the shelves would dwarf the few timorous souls worried about their hearts.
Huh?
Quote:
So I expect rooftop owners to get more business from this, not less, as new customers line up to enjoy the rooftops before they’re driven out of business, since laying eyes on the game is so far down the hierarchy of beer, buddyhood, bratwursts and blowing off an afternoon. I’m not the average fan; to me, a sporting event is watching the superstar Bulls play, not watching whatever nonet of nobodies the Cubs are fielding this year. Still, I’d rather sit on a rooftop chair and stare at the back of the Wrigley Field Jumbotron than sit behind home plate at U.S. Cellular Field and watch the game. Because say what you will about the Cubs — and if it’s negative, it’s probably true — they’ll always have this going for them: At least they’re not the Sox.
I should write for the Sun-Times about interpretive dance then.
Who is this writer? Someone trying to make a name for themselves? Is he going to write for Vice when he gets canned?
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
