|
May 25, 2013
Who is Shyster?
Monthly Archives
May, 2012
November, 2009 October, 2009 September, 2009 August, 2009 July, 2009 June, 2009 May, 2009 April, 2009 March, 2009 February, 2009 January, 2009 December, 2008 November, 2008
Or you can search by:
Most Recent Comments
Sam Zell’s Nightmare Continues (11)
William S. Stevens: 1948-2008 (22) Teixeira’s Options (18) Cole Hamels Meets Talk Radio (23) Appropos of nothing (4) Shyster's Daily Circuit
Rob Neyer
AaronGleeman.com Joe Posnanski Blog Baseball Analysts Baseball Musings Cot's Baseball Contracts It IS About the Money Keith Law Cardboard Gods Baseball Think Factory MLB Trade Rumors Retrosheet Vegas Watch Way Back and Gone Bats -- NYT Baseball Blog The Biz of Baseball The Daily Fungo U.S.S. Mariner Braves Journal Scott Simkus The Common Man Jorge Says No! Baseball Over Here Fack Youk Wezen-Ball Chop-n-Change |
Friday, January 09, 2009Depression baseballThere have been several articles in the past few months about what the economic situation might do to baseball, and with them many comparisons to the Great Depression. Most of them have been driven by looks back at attendance figures. A couple of days ago, however, the New York Times ran one that gave more of a flavor to Depression-era baseball. Even if it's not very instructive with respect to what 21st century baseball may face in these bleak times, it was interesting all the same:Some owners, it seemed, lived in another world. Navin, the owner of the Tigers, bought a racehorse in 1931 even though his players were reportedly having their meal money reduced. Others focused on yachting . . . Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 7:19am Comments
Pete Toms said...
Some good reporting recently on baseball during the Great Depression. Following is a quote from a piece last month in the Denver Post. “In 1929, before the market crashed, major-league baseball ticket revenues were $17 million. By 1933, gate receipts had plummeted to $11 million. A big-leaguer made an average of $7,000 in 1929. That dwindled to $4,500 by 1936.” Commenting on the Denver Post piece, chair of economics at Clemson - Raymond Sauer - wrote on his blog. “Obviously, the impact of the depression on the finances of a baseball team was severe. They were fortunate to operate under the reserve clause in those years, which limited the duration of player contracts to one year, making adjustment to declining demand much simpler.” AND “...In contrast to the monetary figures, baseball attendance held up well during the depression. This is because teams lowered prices in response to declining nominal demand. [Note that the aggregate price level dropped 25% between 1929 and 1933.]. This should not be taken as evidence that sports are “recession-proof” since the financial side of the operations are inextricably tied to the aggregate economy.”.... I see the same pattern this offseason. Ticket sales are reportedly good but there is a lot of “discounting” going on. And the FA market indicates that player contracts are getting shorter and the compensation declining. ( Yanks excepted ) Posted 01/09 at 10:52 AM
The Common Man said...
Your headline made me think this was an article about being a Cubs fan, Craig. Or maybe the Royals. It seems like MLB was very creative in exploiting new revenue streams in order to stay afloat. I wonder what new developments we’re going to see, aside from shorter contracts and MLB network. Are we so saturated that there is nowhere else for the game to expand further? Posted 01/09 at 12:20 PM
Pete Toms said...
@ The Common Man. Sports in 3D could be the next “big thing” in pro sports. It is already happening and the early reviews are very positive. Posted 01/09 at 12:31 PM
The Common Man said...
@ Pete The skeptic and crumudgeon in me wonders how much 3D would actually improve my enjoyment of the game. I’d rather not have the urge to duck on a line drive up the middle. Then again, I still don’t have HD. Posted 01/09 at 12:37 PM
Page 1 of 1
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. Next Post: Okane Ball>> <<Previous Post: Just stop it | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Indeed. Because it’s not like sports are competing against *more* entertainment options now vs. fewer then, right?