Baseball LCS ratings down! The world is coming to an end!

Here are all the Orioles' first-round picks since they last made the playoffs in 1997. Haven't had one lower than ninth in the last five years.

Of these, only eight of 18 have made the majors so far (much lower than the average first-rounder-to-majors rate of about 65 percent, though the three most recent picks should bump the O's percentage up to about 61 percent if/when they make it. Still below-average.) And only two of those 18 have had even serviceable careers (Markakis and Wieters.)

They've had plenty of time — and money, let's not forget — to get their act together and build a reasonable contender.

Baseball's structure has many flaws. But the Orioles' failure is not remotely close to being one of them.

Code:

                                                                                                                                                       
Year   Rnd DT OvPck                       RdPck Pos  WAR   G   AB  HR   BA  OPS  G  W  L  ERA WHIP SV Type                               Drafted Out of
2011        1     4   4     Dylan Bundy(minors)                                                   RHP   HS                        Owasso HS (Owasso OK)
2010        1     3   3   Manny Machado(minors)                                                    SS   HS            Brito Miami Private HS (Miami FL)
2009        1     5   5 Matthew Hobgood(minors)                                                   RHP   HS                          Norco HS (Norco CA)
2008        1     4   4    Brian Matusz(minors) LHP  1.2  41    4   0 .000 .000 52 16 23 5.53 1.51       0       University of San Diego (San Diego CA)
2007        1     5   5    Matt Wieters(minors)   C  7.6 365 1300  42 .265                            .743 Georgia Institute of Technology (Atlanta GA)
2006        1     9   9    Billy Rowell(minors)                                                    3B   HS            Bishop Eustace HS (Gloucester NJ)
2005        1    13  13  Brandon Snyder(minors)   C  0.0  16   33   0 .273                       .715   HS                  Westfield HS (Westfield VA)
2004        1     8   8   Wade Townsend(minors)                                                        RHP                 Rice University (Houston TX)
2003        1     7   7   Nick Markakis(minors)  OF 19.8 946 3635 104 .295                       .818   JC       Young Harris College (Young Harris GA)
2002        1     4   4     Adam Loewen(minors) LHP  0.8  49   34   1 .176 .576 35  8  8 5.38 1.64  0   HS       Fraser Valley Christian HS (Surrey BC)
2001        1     7   7     Chris Smith(minors)                                                        LHP           Cumberland University (Lebanon TN)
2001        1    19  19  *Mike Fontenot(minors)  2B  2.9 535 1316  26 .263                            .738  Louisiana State University (Baton Rouge LA)
2000        1    14  14       Beau Hale(minors)                                                        RHP              University of Texas (Austin TX)
1999        1    13  13    Mike Paradis(minors)                                                        RHP              Clemson University (Clemson SC)
1999        1    18  18     *Rich Stahl(minors)                                                   LHP   HS              Newton County HS (Covington GA)
1999        1    21  21   *Larry Bigbie(minors)  OF  1.7 392 1227  31 .267                            .726            Ball State University (Muncie IN)
1999        1    23  23     *Keith Reed(minors)  OF -0.1   6    5   0 .200                            .533           Providence College (Providence RI)
1998        1    26  26      Rick Elder(minors)                                                    OF   HS                  Sprayberry HS (Marietta GA)

 

My argument really has nothing to do with salary cap issues; in the post you quoted, I said I didn't have any answers for that, other than noting that one size does not necessarily fit all when it comes to solutions. The only reason I'm in the discussion is to refute this ridiculous notion that you can stimulate interest in a team just by showing them more often. Is Notre Dame any more popular now than it was when they signed that deal with NBC? And there isn't a single major sport with a TV schedule in which the most successful teams and the ones with the most following don't get more national exposure than the small-market and less popular teams. If you think showing the Royals and Pirates the same number of times as the Yankees and Phillies is going to magically make all four teams even in popularity and income, be my guest, but you don't have a lick of proof to back it up.

 

Which is why I added the poor management caveat. That Billy Rowell pick embodies everything that was wrong with the people in place before McPhail. The O's took him a spot before the Giants took Tim Lincecum. Rowell still hasn't made it past Double A, and he's an asshole to boot. And Baltimore knew he was a high-maintenance asshole and took him anyway.

And they've been awful in terms of where they spent their money -- Garrett Atkins comes to mind. It's not even a baseball structural problem as much as an AL East problem. You have to show your fans you're willing to spend in that division or they think you're not trying. Tampa has a superior scouting/front office staff, and the Rays have been able to circumvent that issue a bit because of it. Baltimore throws money at bad people and expects results, and that's been as big of a problem as anything. But they throw bad money at people to try to keep up in a big-spending division. If that makes sense. You just can't get away with awful free-agent deals in that division, unless you're Boston or NYY and willing to have a $200-million plus payroll. Baltimore isn't small market, but it doesn't have that sort of scratch either. That's why it feels so hopeless as a fan.

Back on topic, I did find myself watching the game last night and enjoying it. I just don't know who to root for.

 

There's no sense getting into an argument re: salary caps/floors, because there's no way the lines of argument can be reconciled. Some of us think the competitive implications of the revenue disparities are dramatic, others of us think they're not.

One thing I would suggest is that the NFL and MLB have completely different models with regard to television. Correct me if I am wrong, but the NFL's national broadcast package is the only game in town for those 32 teams. So the line on the income statement that could be called "Broadcast Rights" could also be called "Check from Fox/CBS/NBC/ESPN." Not so with MLB teams ... most (all?) teams have regional broadcasting arrangements that are very significant to their bottom lines. Thus, a team's broadcast revenues include its share of the overall deal plus those resulting from its regional arrangement. I point this out not to argue that all teams would (or would not) be better off with an NFL-type broadcast rights arrangement, but rather to suggest that the national package revenues are, proportionately, of substantially lesser importance to MLB teams than they are to NFL teams.

 

On an unrelated note... there was an article on Entertainment Weekly's website today about "Should Fox air the World Series?" The thinking was Fox tries to launch successful fall programming every year only to have to stop it when baseball comes on.

NBC would have the same problem, but I got to thinking with as bad as NBC's ratings have been this fall, would they try to bid for baseball in the next contract? Ratings for LCS and World Series games might actually be HIGHER than some of the shows they have on this fall.

 

The success of the NFL in TV is based on the principle that one network will always be last in the ratings when contract time rolls around, and that network will drive the bidding. This excellent plan does not work well for baseball because it's offering one month of prime time and a bunch of Saturday afternoons in the summer, not enough to impact ratings overall.
I think the EW premise is based on an outmoded business model of TV programming. The traditional September-October premiere season is increasingly a thing of the past. Hell, American Idol, Fox's biggest hit of all, debuts each January.

 

One huge difference between now and when NBC last had baseball in the late 80s (not counting The Baseball Network era) is that they're heavily invested in being The Olympic Network. Not just financially, but in imaging and spreading the rings across so many platforms ... which is just gonna increase with Comcast calling the shots. Comcast has deep pockets, but deep enough for baseball along with the NFL and the Olympics?

 

I don't see how the depth of Comcast's or anybody else's pockets would matter here. If the baseball deal is going to make money for the network, then it's only going to add to the bottom line; and if it isn't, then nobody would bid it at that price.

I could see the World Series going cable the next time around, most likely ESPN. The cable side is where the crazy money is. And after much hue and cry from old media about how the world is ending, 99 percent of the people who want to see the games would have access to the games.

 

Baseball's revenues are generated locally, not nationally. Baseball clubs have far, far, far more inventory in terms of local television and attendance, so it's primary focus is on local and regional cable deals and getting people to the ballparks. That's the primary difference. National TV ratings are not indicative of the sport's popularity no matter how much these annual dumb stories try to suggest.

 

You still aren't getting it, or you are just ignoring the point.

You can't just even out the coverage. You also have to eliminate the perception that the deck is heavily stacked for a small number of teams. It is the combination that works for the NFL. That is the proof. Make people believe their team has a real shot and they will start paying more attention.

Sure, you can take the floor/cap/revenue sharing thing out of my argument -- if you want to completely misrepresent it.

 

No, oop, you entered a conversation about using TV coverage to increase interest in other teams started by other people, and you signed off on the idea as part of your argument. I don't really care to discuss salary caps or floors or revenue sharing or anything else. My only dog in this fight is pointing out that it is folly to believe that TV networks can boost interest in small-market teams by giving them more coverage than their interest level and performance dictates. Whether it's a standalone idea or part of a 20-point plan to fix revenue disparity, that element is still out to lunch and has never been successful, and has in fact failed or is failing in related attempts (Arena Football, WNBA).

 

The Orioles are like the old single aunt who corners you at your sister's wedding and reminds you that she once used to be beautiful, too.