Is MLB going overboard trying to sell star power?

[Surgnbuck]

I'm looking at the first completed weekend, and the MLB site sure seems to have a love affair with a select few players.



I'm not knocking the players on this. But I dare say MLB spent more time hyping Ohtani this past weekend on their page then covering baseball. The Angels are 1-3.



I think MLB is trying to hype the individual, and try to make them "must see" to get more people back in the stands. I'm sorry, but rarely are there ever even any "must see" players, and there certainly aren't dozens of them.



The Los Angeles Ohtani's of Anaheim, with guest star Mike Trout, are off to a 1-3 start. You wouldn't know that from the hype though. I'd have thunk the Angels were 198-0. Combined Trout and Ohtani have a HR and a double, respectively, in four total games as far as extra base hits go. Michael Chavis did that in one game, and his HR meant as much to his team as any hit yesterday, but no mention of that.



That's the problem with the hype. Ohtani and Trout will have their days, many of them. Let's report on them when they happen, and give the Michael Chavis' of the world their day in the sun when they were one of MLB's biggest stars on the day. That's what makes baseball great. The cream rises to the top, but let it get there. And some days you go to the fridge, and you're out of cream.

[GreenWeenie]

MLB is marketing its star players.  From what I've heard, it's what most of the market wants in their efforts to grow the sport.  As I understand it, MLB's viewed heavily as a regional in nature, and they're trying to make it national or even international.  By that, I mean that (as only an example) they see that fans will tune in to watch "their" favorite team, but not the "other games" often enough.  That, and the less involved fan doesn't watch "teams."  They watch players whom they follow, like, or are interested in.  They don't care as much about the standings.



So, certain players are going to be involved, and Ohtani captures interest for a couple big reasons. 



I'm not defending it.  I'm explaining it.



I don't have an opinion on whether things like this is "too much," "about right," or "too little.' They run their numbers. They do their research. They have skin in the game. I don't.

[2drfischer@gmail.c]

725453464F4354424A210 wrote: I'm looking at the first completed weekend, and the MLB site sure seems to have a love affair with a select few players. 



I'm not knocking the players on this. But I dare say MLB spent more time hyping Ohtani this past weekend on their page then covering baseball. The Angels are 1-3.



I think MLB is trying to hype the individual, and try to make them "must see" to get more people back in the stands. I'm sorry, but rarely are there ever even any "must see" players, and there certainly aren't dozens of them.



The Los Angeles Ohtani's of Anaheim, with guest star Mike Trout,  are off to a 1-3 start. You wouldn't know that from the hype though. I'd have thunk the Angels were 198-0. Combined Trout and Ohtani have a HR and a double, respectively, in four total games as far as extra base hits go. Michael Chavis did that in one game, and his HR meant as much to his team as any hit yesterday, but no mention of that.



That's the problem with the hype. Ohtani and Trout will have their days, many of them. Let's report on them when they happen, and give the Michael Chavis' of the world their day in the sun when they were one of MLB's biggest stars on the day. That's what makes baseball great. The cream rises to the top, but let it get there. And some days you go to the fridge, and you're out of cream.


Interesting stuff, Surge.  I know the NBA markets the heck out of its stars, but their stars are involved in a game far more than a star baseball player is.  I saw an article awhile back that stated LeBron James "touches" the ball something like 90 times per game.  In the meantime, a star baseball player will bat four or five times in a game and will have the ball hit to him maybe five to eight times, with most of those times being routine plays.



All the team sports show amazing efforts by players, but baseball displays the individual like no other sport when the player is at the plate.  He's on an island when he bats.  But it happens only a handful of times in a game, and he's going to fail the vast majority of those times.  Maybe MLB figures taking advantage of their successes is best for the league.

[Bobster21]

It's the strategy of marketing to the casual fan. Fans who follow individual stars more than teams are less concerned about the game results than about that player's performance/stats. Will fans who are attracted to MLB because of Ohtani care if the Angels win or lose if he is traded? But loyal Pirate fans, as terrible as the team has been, didn't stop following the Pirates when Cutch or Walker or Cole changed uniforms. When Roberto died or when Pops retired. Loyal baseball fans have always rooted for the uniform. We may maintain an interest in how our former players do with their subsequent teams but our primary interest is in the players still in the Pirate uniform. I think this is true of fans of all teams because what drew us to the game was the game.



But owners no long care about the game. They change the rules of the game at the drop of a hat. Make believe doubles to begin extra innings? Really? An uneven financial playing field in which only a few teams can afford to consistently compete? These aren't owners concerned with the game itself. They are concerned with marketing. If promoting individuals over the game will draw revenue, that's all that matters. But players come and go. Marketing fungible players over the constant of the game might not be the best strategy in the long run. Maybe they should go back and listen to James Earl Jones again.

[GreenWeenie]

I knew that McGwire and Sosa were hitting a lot of tit-for-tat home runs way back when.



No idea what their teams were doing. Didn't care.



And, I follow more MLB than casual fans.



I'm not sure that much has changed since. People watch stars and achievements.

[Surgnbuck]

655047474C7547474C4B47220 wrote: I knew that McGwire and Sosa were hitting a lot of tit-for-tat home runs way back when.



No idea what their teams were doing.  Didn't care. 



And, I follow more MLB than casual fans.



I'm not sure that much has changed since.  People watch stars and achievements.
They may WATCH them, but are they PAYING to do so? That's the gist of my question.



In the history of MLB, there probably was maybe 2 guys people actually paid to see, Babe Ruth before a bunch of other guys started hitting home runs at crazy rates, and Jackie Robinson. Anyone else, it was briefly because of a chase, McGwire and Sosa, and Bonds. I don't believe for a minute there is a singular player who moves the knob all that much as far as fannys in the seats.



Ohtani is a better choice to market swag than a Chavis, but the big names already have the attention.



As far as your comment about "no skin in the game", you don't have any skin in the game as far as who owns, runs, or plays for the Pirates, but that doesn't stop you from commenting about it does it?



And just because there are "people" who are paid to research this stuff, doesn't make them right either just because someone isn't paid. Didn't take a genius to know the "New Coke" thing was going to be a disaster, but a lot of "people" were paid who said otherwise.



I don't think the NBA is as popular as it used to be, because of the overhyping of individual players. And they have a lot of empty seats game after game, save a few arenas.



Yes, the casual fan may not care about the Angels record wearing an Ohtani shirt, but that guy might care about some other team, but happens to like Ohtani. He'll spend 150 bucks for the shirt, but he won't go to anymore games because of Ohtani.



You can only sell so many shirts. Those seats never move, and are always waiting to be sold.

[GreenWeenie]

I'm no market researcher, but, just going by my own experience, I'd say yes.



I have paid to see certain players on a number of occasions, and I'm able to name them and remember what it was like for me to see them. Many of the walk up tickets I've bought were for pitching matchups. For other guys I wanted to see, I'd buy them in advance. But, I'm just one guy.



I have no issue with MLB marketing individual players. I don't see it as any big deal. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, then at least they've tried.

[Bobster21]

6D584F4F447D4F4F44434F2A0 wrote: I'm no market researcher, but, just going by my own experience, I'd say yes.



I have paid to see certain players on a number of occasions, and I'm able to name them and remember what it was like for me to see them.  Many of the walk up tickets I've bought were for pitching matchups.  For other guys I wanted to see, I'd buy them in advance.  But, I'm just one guy.



I have no issue with MLB marketing individual players.  I don't see it as any big deal.  If it works, it works.  If it doesn't, then at least they've tried.
I'm sure many feel as you do. But I have never attended an event primarily to see any particular player. I've always been team oriented. Excluding players on the Pirates or Orioles, I'm very glad to have seen Spahn, Aaron, Bob Uecker, Mantle, Fidrych, Rose, Richie Allen, Yastrzemski, Kaline, Randy Johnson and others. But I never went to see them. I went to see their team play my home team. The attraction for me was always in watching my team play regardless of who was on the other team.



For me, it was always about the team; not the individuals. In fact, I lost interest in the Orioles in 1999 because they signed Albert Belle. That creep was a sociopath whose former team (Chisox) were relieved when he left. He was such a jerk that I could not root for the Orioles to win if it meant Belle getting the key hit. Even now, my interest in the Orioles is marginal at best. It was far greater before Belle joined them. So in my experience, I'm not influenced by particular players to attend games but I can be influenced to avoid games or even teams due to the negative impact of particular players.

[GreenWeenie]

I must be missing something.



Ever since I was a Little Weenie (still am) and held the transistor radio against my ear on the pillow, The Gunner, himself, used to pimp Pirates attendance by saying things like "Henry Aaron, Phil Niekro, and the Braves are coming to town on" ( whenever.) It was the players first, then the team.



That was in the late 19 60s.



Baseball marketing takes on different forms based on whatever they think will work.  I see it as a good thing. 



Dave brought up a good point.  He reminded me that he knows some guy in the Pittsburgh area who was going to come all the way to Philadelphia....just so he could see ANDREW MCCUTCHEN play again.  Not sure if he ever did, though.