Subway Series Lowest Rated in History
Doug Norris
Series, we should compare it to the past two World Series' ratings, well,
it's been done.
This year's WS was the lowest rated WS ever.
Doug
King Yao
But, when compared to the 30% drops in the ALCS and NLCS (both NY teams were
in the LCS last year too), that's not bad.
To me, these two pieces of information make it very difficult to evaluate
whether a Sea/NYM or StL/NYY WS would have a higher rating.
Doug Norris <norr...@rintintin.colorado.edu> wrote in message
news:norrisdt....@rintintin.colorado.edu...
re...@my-deja.com
for all televised sports events dropping year to year.
In article <vgzK5.366779$i5.59...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Doug Norris
>Yes, it dropped 21% from last year.
>But, when compared to the 30% drops in the ALCS and NLCS (both NY teams were
>in the LCS last year too), that's not bad.
>To me, these two pieces of information make it very difficult to evaluate
>whether a Sea/NYM or StL/NYY WS would have a higher rating.
You can't change it now. Furthermore, you have to make comparisons based
on EXISTING data, not on something that probably will never happen. The
existing data is evidence that the country doesn't care about a Subway Series.
Doug
James Marshall
>You can't change it now. Furthermore, you have to make comparisons based
>on EXISTING data, not on something that probably will never happen. The
>existing data is evidence that the country doesn't care about a Subway Series.
Man, does no one consider all the other factors? Let's see if I can remember
all the other points I read and recap them here. (1) Two NY teams in the
WS = 1 hometown market, not 2. That immediately affects the ratings.
(2) The games started at 8:30pm Eastern time and didn't end until around
midnight Eastern, usually. When you air something at a less than ideal
time, ratings drop. (3) It was shown on FOX -- (3a) FOX's coverage left
something to be desired, (3b) FOX is not as well established across the
country as other major networks like ABC, CBS, NBC, (3c) the local channels
are competing against tons of cable channels on top of that. (4) Ratings
aren't exactly the most accurate thing in existence -- I'm sure there were
a whole bunch of group gatherings with lots of people watching the game in
one place. One TV rating there doesn't account for the multiple people
who happened to be there at the time. (5) Other huge events on TV -- the
Olympics in Sydney being held at an unusual time forced normal network TV
to push premiers into October and at the same time you've got a presidental
election going on. An rare occurrence, but this could certainly also
affect the ratings. (6) You can't always compare baseball ratings against
other sports' ratings because of the difference in numbers of games played,
how often they play, etc. and besides that, the long season may contribute
to baseball having a more regional/local interest than other sports. If
you don't believe me, I took some points out of this article
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/columns/psx/20001027/despitelowratingsfor.html
titled "Despite low ratings for Subway Series, baseball remains as popular
as ever". I really wish people would stop picking out one single factor
and claiming it's resonsible for everything when it's clearly not.
And for all of you who decided to tune out just because it was two
New York teams in the WS, you missed one hell of a show. It was a great
series, great ball played by both sides, very close games (3 one-run games
and 2 two-run games) often being decided at the very ends of the game (e.g.
Game 5, Mets lead 2-1 in the 2nd, Yankees tied it in the 6th, and then
managed to break the tie in the 9th with 2 outs against them). The players
have called it a gut-wrenching series and with games as tight as these were,
they were right. It was a heck of a lot closer than the final 4-1 series
score implies. Last point, I'm not saying everyone should have watched;
I may not have watched if it were two teams from out west or something.
What bothers me is people jumping to conclusions (low ratings on Subway
Series = people hate NY) when considering all the factors that affect
things may change their opinion.
--
. . . . -- James Marshall (ORI) * ,
,. -- )-- , , . -- )-- , mars...@astro.umd.edu
' ' http://www.astro.umd.edu/~marshall '''
"Astronomy is a dyslexic's nightmare." , *
David J. Grabiner
> Yes, it dropped 21% from last year.
> But, when compared to the 30% drops in the ALCS and NLCS (both NY teams were
> in the LCS last year too), that's not bad.
> To me, these two pieces of information make it very difficult to evaluate
> whether a Sea/NYM or StL/NYY WS would have a higher rating.
It is necessary to consider the circumstances. Several LCS games were
up against the presidentail debates, weren't shown on broadcast TV in
some areas, and even where they were shown, lost viewers. And the World
Series was up against season premieres.
However, there were certainly some baseball factors which didn't help.
Games ending after midnight on the East Coast probably lost part of
their audience in the late innings where the most people were watching.
--
David Grabiner, grab...@math.la.asu.edu (note new address)
http://math.la.asu.edu/~grabiner
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Torus Coffee and Donuts, Klein Glassworks, Projective Airlines, etc.
Pat McLean
> New York teams in the WS, you missed one hell of a show
While the fact it was two NY teams didn't impress me, my not watching had a
lot more to do with 8:30 starts and 4 hour games. As much as I love the
game, that's too late for me when I have to get up in the morning...
King Yao
Doug Norris <norr...@rintintin.colorado.edu> wrote in message
news:norrisdt....@rintintin.colorado.edu...
I'm not changing anything. The data showed the 30% drop for the ALCS and
the NLCS - with both NY teams in '99 and '00. That data was not available
to us (at least not me) at the time of the discussion (since that was in the
middle of the ALCS/NLCS).
I would imagine any intelligent person would surmise that a 30% drop in the
ALCS and the NLCS would probably mean a drop in the WS, no matter who was
playing. I'm just not sure if that means the WS should have dropped only 5%
or 30% also, so in my opinion, it is inconclusive.
Doug Norris
>I would imagine any intelligent person would surmise that...
Oh good, ad hominem attacks. I can ignore you now.
Doug
King Yao
David J. Grabiner <grab...@math.la.asu.edu> wrote in message
news:wkem10q...@math.la.asu.edu...
The arguemnt was based on the ratings of a NY/NY series versus a possible
Ny/Sea or Ny/Stl series. I argued that it would be about the same, others
argued a NY/NY would be lower.
Based on the results of the ALCS/NLCS and the WS, the data is inconclusive,
in my opinion.
Tom Nawrocki
> It is necessary to consider the circumstances. Several LCS games were
> up against the presidentail debates, weren't shown on broadcast TV in
> some areas, and even where they were shown, lost viewers. And the World
> Series was up against season premieres.
>
> However, there were certainly some baseball factors which didn't help.
> Games ending after midnight on the East Coast probably lost part of
> their audience in the late innings where the most people were watching.
Are the ratings numbers we see just for prime time, or do they include ratings
for 11:00 and beyond?
I can't for the life of me understand why they didn't start the games till
almost 8:30. An 8:05 start would have had most of the games done around 11:30
instead of midnight, which is a big difference for those of us with jobs and/or
little children.
Tom Nawrocki
King Yao
Tom Nawrocki <nawr...@aol.com.not> wrote in message
news:20001030102424...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
i think they were thinking of the Pacific Time Zone contingent. they said
the ratings went up at 11:00 - 11:30 - because that's when people in the
Pacific started tuning in - which overshadowed the kids going to bed in the
east coast. Its the same reason why monday night football failed when they
moved it to 8pm EST - cause most people in the West Coast are still in
traffic jams at that time.
RStLoup
posted here) is large enough that it seems that it can't be fully explained
away by the growth in cable/satellite (not a one year development) or the
presidential debates (not on every night.) Since the drop applied to the ALCS
and the NLCS as well as the WS, there doesn't seem to be much reason to
pinpoint the NY/NY matchup. I didn't watch this year, not based on a
particular distaste for the partcipants, but just because from one year to the
next I have gradually lost interest in the playoff season that has been
extended from 1995 on.
It's rarely correct to generalize one's own preferences to the population at
large, but I maintained then and maintain now that the playoff expansion might
create a short-term burst of revenue but was not necessarily a good long-term
move because it undermined the drama of the winner-take-all season races and it
further distanced the relationship between team quality and winning the WS, a
delicate matter for baseball in particular, for which additional playoff rounds
are more disruptive of the probabilities than they are in basketball or
football because the weaker team wins a greater percentage of individual games
in baseball. While there's no particular reason to assume that my feelings on
the matter are necessarily shared by the rest of the population, the recent
decline in ratings, coincident with my own loss of interest, are suggestive
that I'm not the only one who sees less meaning and therefore less satisfaction
in each passing year's postseason play.
(btw, I'm fully aware that the Mets made it to the Series in 1973 with a
mediocre record, and the Twins won it in 1987 with a not-so-great record. But
despite the quotation of selective data points, it remains true that each time
baseball doubles the number of playoff participants, they further diminish the
statistical relationship between actual team quality and the distinction of
being crowned champion.)
bkmaj
sign this and mail it to Bud.
maj
RStLoup wrote in message <20001030172352...@ng-ch1.aol.com>...
mat_m...@my-deja.com
you didnt live in NY why would you care about two New York teams
playing unless you are a diehard baseball fan. Also i think they would
have made a little more money if the games would have started at 7:00
pm est and where aired either on NBC or ABC
mat_m...@my-deja.com
you didnt live in NY why would you care about two New York teams
playing unless you are a diehard baseball fan. Also i think they would
have made a little more money if the games would have started at 7:00
they could have made this a more popular series for everyone not just
people in NY.
Vinay Kumar
: Without a doubt its true what people are saying about the series. If
: you didnt live in NY why would you care about two New York teams
: playing unless you are a diehard baseball fan. Also i think they would
: have made a little more money if the games would have started at 7:00
: pm est
Hmm, that seems kind of inconsistent. If people in NY care about the
series, they'll watch it whether it's at 7 or at 8:30. But if people
outside NY don't care, there's no way they're rushing home to watch a
4pm PT game. It might be unfair to make the locals stay up late, but
it might have helped capture the western market a little.
--
/---------------------------------------------------------------\
| Vinay Kumar |
| vi...@baseball.org http://www.baseball.org/~vinay |
\---------------------------------------------------------------/