Slashdot Mirror


Baseball Cracks Down on Fan Sites

serutan writes: "Looks like Major League Baseball has joined other players in the big-media content industry to crack down on fans who overstep their proper place as consumers. Anybody with a website dedicated to America's favorite pastime better read this story on Yahoo."

258 comments

  1. Foot, gun, aim - shoot ! by MrFenty · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You really would think that baseball, of all sports, could do with some good publicity, what with all the strikes going on. Shooting yourself in the foot all the time will only drive away those casual fans, and hence revenue. Deary, deary me.

    1. Re:Foot, gun, aim - shoot ! by technix4beos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm so sick of these bloody corporations dictating what is proper to be posted for PUBLIC consumption.

      What is stopping someone from simply making a website that lists statistics, player info, and so on, but changing the relevant information in such a way that there is no hint of MLB, or NFL, or any other sports logo anywhere?

      What I'm getting at is this... a translator website that simply lists the information, as neutral as it can, without directly stating or "infringing" on their copyrights.

      Not that it matters anyhow.. Why can't someone just put up a website on a non-US server?

      What is wrong with posting information, plain information.. pure and simple???

      Rant over. Flame away you slashturds.

      --
      user@host$ diff /dev/urandom /dev/uspto
    2. Re:Foot, gun, aim - shoot ! by Lshmael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As the article says, "It's business, not personal..." A lack of fan sites will push those casual fans to surf over to the league's official sites, thereby creating a massive infusion of advertising dollars, created by banner ads...oh, wait, it's September 2002...

      There is something to be said about the sites using the team's official trademarks. If I set up a Mr Fenty fan site, can I use your official Mr Fenty logos? Please....

    3. Re:Foot, gun, aim - shoot ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      What is wrong with posting information, plain information.. pure and simple???

      What's wrong with it? Well, first of all the corporations own that information.

    4. Re:Foot, gun, aim - shoot ! by technix4beos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tell me how they own the information that comprises a game score?

      Radio stations do not pay a fee to announce game scores as part of their news program, neither do TV.

      However.. MLB pays THEM to advertise the game highlights, and other related information, when they need exposure.

      --
      user@host$ diff /dev/urandom /dev/uspto
    5. Re:Foot, gun, aim - shoot ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the results are broadcast in an analog form, they cannot be copied infinitely whereas statistics in digital form can. Now, if you could make a profit by selling statistics, wouldn't you want to prevent free access to the data concerning a game format you own?

    6. Re:Foot, gun, aim - shoot ! by technix4beos · · Score: 1

      ... in an analog form, they cannot be copied infinitely ...

      Ever heard of a tape recorder?

      Besides which, how useful are the statistics after the season is over? (Yes, I know about long term statistical analysis, thanx).

      I should say, rather, "how relevant to the immediate timeframe" are the statistics, if posted in digital/analog form?

      Big deal... It's no different than purchasing a book on baseball statistics, and then broadcasting/posting a stream/website about said material, and telling the public how good a particular team has been.

      Big deal... When in a hundred years we look back at this silly topic, we will certainly laugh at all of our ineptitude.

      Besides, can you reply with a nickname, or are you too scared to reveal yourself online?

      --
      user@host$ diff /dev/urandom /dev/uspto
    7. Re:Foot, gun, aim - shoot ! by Spock+the+Baptist · · Score: 1

      "Well, first of all the corporations own that information."

      Son, son...

      Nobody can own information.

      If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. .... and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. --Thomas Jefferson

      --
      "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
    8. Re:Foot, gun, aim - shoot ! by technix4beos · · Score: 1

      Using a nickname is slightly more public, imho.

      For instance, anyone can look up my nickname and note what affiliations I belong to, etc.

      Want to know more? I moved to the netherlands from Canada 6 months ago, am an IT guy, am into BeOS, and love computers.

      --
      user@host$ diff /dev/urandom /dev/uspto
    9. Re:Foot, gun, aim - shoot ! by mbogosian · · Score: 1

      Shooting yourself in the foot all the time will only drive away those casual fans, and hence revenue.

      Actually, retaining fan loyalty is one of the demands of the strike.

    10. Re:Foot, gun, aim - shoot ! by packeteer · · Score: 1

      As soon as public dollars stop paying for public stadiums to play in THEN and only then will i sidagree with you. You have an good idea that corporations should not have control over public space.

      Here in Seattle we built an entire new stadium for the Mariners AND Seahawks. Guess how much the owners of the Mariners had to pay? If you guessed ZERO your right. They were able to hold onto the naming rights which they sold to pay off the small amount they were required to contribute to the fund. Its sick to think that I payed for a stadium (now Safeco Field, thanks Safeco for bailing the rich owners out of their not fair share) that i dont have any control over. Its disgusting, im not a big fan of baseball but i do enjoy going to mariners games.

      I dont know if i can do it any more, to think of all the millionaires running around chasing a ball while people are desperetly looking for work. If that scenario was described in a sci-fi book what would you think. You would think that the scioety which condones that needs help. Sorry but our does need some work but everyone is too lazy to do it.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    11. Re:Foot, gun, aim - shoot ! by thealphageek · · Score: 1

      Just to be clear. There is NO corporation that "owns" the game format. Baseball is free. Punishing web sites for reproducing information on current events (like newspapers do in their sports section) is beyond ridiculously stupid.

      I just thank god I am not a fan of the sport and will be glad when they go too far and the sport dies. These guys have raped the public over their love of the sport until it has made them sour. Hopefully this will save sports like Hockey from self-destructing as well.

      Baseball is leading the way down this path, but Basketball and Football are following close behind. Look at Basketball for example. It was invented in Canada and is probably the least popular sport ntionally. The strike they had was the final straw in Vancouver that made the Grizzlies have to go looking elsewhere for fans.

      Sports fans are like beaten spouses, they just keep appologizing for their abusers because they love them too much until one day they go too far and everyone loses.

      Greedy owners and orgs beware! We may not have your money individually, but together we do AND we out number you. Hopefully we won't outnumber you in the stands anymore and that will start to make the message sink in.

    12. Re:Foot, gun, aim - shoot ! by NanoGator · · Score: 2

      "Shooting yourself in the foot all the time will only drive away those casual fans, and hence revenue. Deary, deary me."

      For some reason that seems to be a popular business model lately:

      - Squeeze every penny out of your customer
      - Provide less and less quality
      - Call them names including thief
      - Cry like a baby to the gov't when you're not making enough money

      I only took one semester of economics, and maybe I'm just being naieve, but how could this business plan possibly work?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    13. Re:Foot, gun, aim - shoot ! by DEBEDb · · Score: 2

      Let me guess. This is the microecon.
      class where they teach you about
      Adam Smith and explain that in this world
      the business plan could not possibly work.

      Then you take the next course, and realize
      that laws of supply-demand are all well and
      good, but we don't have a perfect market,
      we have government with all sorts of regulations
      that are not all there to stop fraud - no, many
      of them are payback to large companies
      contributing to politicians' campaigns.
      Simplistic rules no longer apply, that is,
      they apply instead to the laws instead
      of the product. :)

      --

      Considered harmful.
    14. Re:Foot, gun, aim - shoot ! by Disevidence · · Score: 1

      You don't get it, do you?

      --
      Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
    15. Re:Foot, gun, aim - shoot ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some reason that seems to be a popular business model lately:

      - Squeeze every penny out of your customer
      - Provide less and less quality
      - Call them names including thief
      - Cry like a baby to the gov't when you're not making enough money


      - ????

      - Profit!!

    16. Re:Foot, gun, aim - shoot ! by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      Punishing web sites for reproducing information on current events (like newspapers do in their sports section) is beyond ridiculously stupid.

      They didn't. They punished web sites that were using team/baseball league logos--and those same sites were apparently trying to make some money. My understanding is that they don't even have a problem with fans using their logos on websites as long as it's non-profit.

      I still think it's heavy-handed. Especially for something called "America's passtime."

    17. Re:Foot, gun, aim - shoot ! by Capsaicin · · Score: 1
      Nobody can own information.

      You haven't been paying attention have you. There's this little thing called 'Intellectual Property' ...

      On the other hand, it is arguable that no-one ought to be able to own information. Given the importance of the 'information economy,' however, any such arguments are sure to fall on deaf ears.

      Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

      Well perhaps not in nature, but certainly in a society of laws:

      The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  2. How ironic.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The owners expect us, the fans, to believe the players are greedy bastards and then they pull a stunt like this. It's things like this which make me think the players union isn't that bad.

    1. Re:How ironic.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's things like this which make me think the players union isn't that bad.

      Look, it's a union, and therefore it is bad, by definition. They are (property) owners, and therefore they are good by definition. What are you?! A communist or sumth'n?

  3. Baseball use to be about the fans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe after they go bankrupt they'll realize thier mistakes.

  4. oops by ComaVN · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Sorry about that, I should cut back on caffeine

    --
    Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
  5. MLB = Money, Lawyers, Bitching by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 2, Funny

    These people make me want to shove a bat where the sun doesn't shine.

    --

    In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    1. Re:MLB = Money, Lawyers, Bitching by AngstMerchant · · Score: 2, Funny

      Settle down!! It's not healthy to take your aggressions out on yourself. . .

    2. Re:MLB = Money, Lawyers, Bitching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we've found our goatse.cx guy!!!!

  6. Shock! by LooneyScotsman · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm shocked that the industry would do something like this! Oh, wait, no i'm not... Its probably all done on the advice of lawyers trying to justify their own existence (and jobs) by making trouble. Dont you just hate people like that?

    --
    "Ask a stupid person, get a stupid answer"
  7. Sports fans won't care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suspect sports fans are to a large degree, goosesteppers. The hive mind, the joy of being one with the crowd, the need to be rooting for a team.

  8. Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
    Who cares about a game that's only being played on a serious level in America?

    Now if this were about football (and I'm not talking about the kind of "foot"ball where you carry the ball) then I'd get upset.

    1. Re:Who cares? by FyRE666 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hmm, baseball? Baseball.... Ah yes, now I remember, it's that game where you hit a ball with a stick and run around in a circle. We have that over in the UK too - it's only played by girls though, and called "rounders".

      So they actually pay people to do that over in the US? ;-)

    2. Re:Who cares? by yobbo · · Score: 2

      I assume you have never been to Japan?

    3. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I guess Japan is part of America then? And Canada, and Cuba, and Central America.

    4. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the sports fans are talking!.

    5. Re:Who cares? by Milalwi · · Score: 2

      Now if this were about football (and I'm not talking about the kind of "foot"ball where you carry the ball) then I'd get upset.

      So the "foot"ball where you bang the ball around with your head is ok? ;-)

      Milalwi
    6. Re:Who cares? by rmohr02 · · Score: 2

      They mention that the other kind of football (where you do carry the ball) doesn't care about fan sites, as long as the sites are non-commercial.

    7. Re:Who cares? by mikolajl · · Score: 1

      Hmm, baseball? Baseball.... Ah yes, now I remember, it's that game where you hit a ball with a stick and run around in a circle. We have that over in the UK too - it's only played by girls though, and called "rounders".

      I would be careful using that argument.

      After all, in the US, football is also played mostly by girls (soccer).

    8. Re:Who cares? by dhogaza · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or Cuba? Or Mexico? Or the Dominican Republic? Europeans might be surprised by the number of Major League players who weren't born in the US. Nowadays on a team like the US Dodgers you'll hear Japanese, Spanish and American English being spoken.

    9. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes - so who cares ?

    10. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moderator: This was a Simpson's reference

    11. Re:Who cares? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2

      I'm a big fan of baseball (and a European) and, yes you're right, baseball isn't only an American sport.

      But you have to admit that having guys like Pedro Martinez, Ichiro Suzuki, Danys Baez, Bobby Abreu and Byung Hyung Kim (from the Dominican Republic, Japan, Cuba, Venezuela and South Korea respectively) doesn't make baseball a truly global game.

      Sure, it's big in the Carribean, parts of Latin America, Japan and Korea, and these nations are represented on MLB rosters and have their own professional and semi-professional leagues, but where is the game in Europe, or Africa, or Asia, or Australasia?

      Outside of those countries that I mentioned, baseball is mainly an amateur sport, taken as seriously as log rolling. Amongst the four major US sports in Europe, it lags way behind basketball, ice hockey and even American football in its popularity.

      Why is this? Well, for one thing, MLB has not marketed the game well beyond those borders that it sees as its "traditional" territories. While the NBA and the NFL have played exhibition games overseas regularly, MLB has not.

      Credit where credit is due, MLB has played a regular season game, one that counts for something at the end of the year, outside North America but even that game was in Japan, a market in which baseball already is the dominant imported sport. And when the game was played (at the start of the 2001 season I believe) many of the players sent on that diplomatic mission were negative about going, none more so than Mark McGuire, who was adamant that baseball was an American game, played by Americans for Americans. Hardly "a hands across the ocean" approach.

      Personally, I think that MLB has been too focused on breaking the players' union, and the players' union too focused on taking what it can with both hands, to focus on what's really important: the fans and the game as a whole.

      Once the two parties get beyond their petty rivalries (and even after the narrowly avoided strike they are still years away from real partnership) then, and only then, does baseball have a chance at being a truly global game.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    12. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only people the English can call pussies are the French.

    13. Re:Who cares? by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      Now if this were about football (and I'm not talking about the kind of "foot"ball where you carry the ball) then I'd get upset.

      Oh, you mean that other football, where the objective is to run around in loose shorts and bugger your opponent at the first opportunity megasoccer.com . No thanks, I'll take the American kind, where personal fouls get an automatic 20 yards or half the distance to the goal, and there is enough padding to prevent the European style tackle.

    14. Re:Who cares? by FyRE666 · · Score: 1

      After all, in the US, football is also played mostly by girls

      Well, they do call it the "beautiful game", and if our teams were all female I might actually watch it ;-)

    15. Re:Who cares? by offpath3 · · Score: 1

      >Sure, it's big in the Carribean, parts of Latin
      >America, Japan and Korea, and these nations are
      >represented on MLB rosters and have their own
      >professional and semi-professional leagues, but
      >where is the game in Europe, or Africa, or Asia,
      >or Australasia?

      Umm, explain to me exactly where Japan and Korea are if they are not in Asia. =)

      -The Japanese Intern

    16. Re:Who cares? by Disevidence · · Score: 1

      Central America is not part of America??

      You live in a weird weird world, my friend.

      --
      Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
    17. Re:Who cares? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2

      I think you know what I mean.

      Where's baseball taken seriously in Asia outside of Japan and South Korea? Where are there any leagues?

      And where are the MLB players born and raised in India, Pakistan, China, Malaysia, Thailand or even the Phillipenes?

      Nowhere, because they don't exist. Outside of a handful of countries, MLB and baseball in general is about as popular as John Rocker at a gay pride festival.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    18. Re:Who cares? by rgmoore · · Score: 1
      Sure, it's big in the Carribean, parts of Latin America, Japan and Korea, and these nations are represented on MLB rosters and have their own professional and semi-professional leagues, but where is the game in Europe, or Africa, or Asia, or Australasia?

      Well, there was a professional league in Taiwan, but it suffered from the influence of professional gamblers and had to be shut down. It's not as though the game isn't popular there, and there are Taiwanese players in both the North American and Japanese professional leagues. There is also a professional league in Australia (bet you didn't know that) and a number of Aussie players are currently active in the U.S. majors. Atlanta Braves' pitcher Damian Moss, for instance, is an Australian currently vying for the NL Rookie of the Year award.

      There are at least a few amateur leagues in Europe. ISTR that baseball is taken at least semi-seriously in both the Netherlands and Italy, and I know of teams in the U.K. and Poland. It's obviously not a hugely popular sport in Europe in general, but it is played there. There's also some effort currently under way to introduce the game to Africa and the rest of Asia. There was an amusing article recently about American servicemen introducing baseball in Afghanistan.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    19. Re:Who cares? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2

      My point exactly - while the MLB owners and players spend their time trying to beat each other up they can't make a concerted effort to do anything else.

      Fan apathy in the US and Canada is one consequence of the recent labour unrest and the international standing of the game is another (albeit a more long term issue).

      The other major American sports have made major inroads overseas - basketball leads the way but American football and even ice hockey are growing in popularity outside of North America.

      Take Britain as an example - professional basketball and ice hockey leagues, long established amateur American football leagues and an NFL Europe franchise but only a handful of amateur baseball teams.

      I'm not saying that the game's non-existant outside of its core heartlands, what I'm saying is that the game isn't as big globally as it could or should be.

      And, as long as the owners and the players continue to work against each other rather than with each other, the situation isn't going to change in a hurry.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    20. Re:Who cares? by rgmoore · · Score: 1

      Not to be annoying, but you're being ridiculously Eurocentric. Yes, it's true that baseball is not the most popular U.S. export sport in Europe. (Including Ice Hockey is a bad joke, FWIW, because that was imported from Europe to North America, not the other way around.) It is among the most popular U.S. exports in other parts of the world, and absolutely the most popular in many places. To say that it's not being marketed overseas because it doesn't happen to be popular where you are is exactly the kind of parochial worldview that Americans are accused of.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    21. Re:Who cares? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2

      Last time I looked, Cuba, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic were all in America.

    22. Re:Who cares? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2

      Hey, I think you have me confused with someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.

      Let me give you a quick background check. At university I was the Sports Editor on the student newspaper. Since then, I've been a journalist, mainly dealing with IT but sometimes, when the opportunity has arisen, I've covered professional sports too.

      I've reviewed Premiership and international football (that's soccer to you Americans), the World League of American Football (what's now NFL Europe), professional basketball, rugby, tennis and other sports.

      I've dealt with PR people from all sorts of sports organisations, ranging from the NFL (very helpful) to university sports administrators (often indifferent).

      MLB is one of the few professional sports that doesn't have its own house in order. In fact, speaking from personal experience, I'd go as far as to say they were almost paranoid about any media exposure that they couldn't control.

      When I spoke to someone their asking for a comment on the 1994 player's strike I was surprised at how paranoid the people I spoke to were about even the slightest bit of negative publicity - as if it was possible to put a positive spin on a strike that wiped out a World Series, Tony Gwynn's shot at a .400 season, etc. In the end, I gave up hitting my head against a brick wall and decided to use a handful of quotes that were already out there and a picture that didn't come from their press office. (Did I mention that they would only release a photo to me if they could see and veto the article first?)

      Don't get me wrong, I love baseball. I subscribe to the radio broadcasts available on mlb.com and, once I have a broadband connection, I'll probably subscribe to some of their video highlights too. I listen to a large proportion of the Houston Astros' games - despite the time difference, which means that most of the games start at 1.05am over here.

      But, having dealt with people from the NFL, NBA and NHL, even while working on the student newspaper, I can honestly say that those organisations are many orders of magnitude better in how they approach the development and fan base of their games overseas.

      This isn't some kind of "parochial worldview". This is fact.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    23. Re:Who cares? by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2

      Of course, the reason the IOC is considering dropping Baseball and Softball is precisely because the Europeans suck at it.

      Who are the perennial contenders in Baseball? North Americans (and Caribbean), South Americans, and Asian.

      Softball? Same thing (and add the Aussies).

      So that's why they want to replace those sports with golf and rugby!

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
  9. Not flamebait by loraksus · · Score: 5, Flamebait

    But seriously, who cares about baseball anymore. It's not like the strike of '95ish didn't kill attendance at games, and there are more exciting sports to watch (australian rules "football" for example). Most of the people I know think baseball is a pain in the ass in the tv schedule, with games running 9 or whatever-the-hell extra innings.

    That said, this is a brilliant move on their part, nothing like pissing off hardcore fans to drum up hatred against the the MLB and lower their tv ratings to the level of donahue's new show.

    --
    1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    1. Re:Not flamebait by zerocool^ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. I have a real problem with a sport in which there is no time limit.

      I was flipping over to espn to catch sports center yesterday, to see some college football scores and comments. You know what I got? 30 minutes of baseball, then I turned it off. It's so stupid - major league baseball gets so much airtime, and no one cares. If you watch highlights reels from the game, you notice that whenever someone hits a homerun, there's never anyone in the stands to catch it. I mean, these are premium seats, and the 3 people in the section are all scrambling over the chairs to get to the ball.

      And they keep demanding more money. Tickets for baseball are *so* expensive, like $50. And these greedy fucks they call players want more. Well, I'll tell you how to get more. Make the game interesting, get more people into the stands. I was actually pissed off that you people didn't go on strike - Friday was a sad day. Strike = less TV converage.

      Eventually we will abandon the all american past time in favor of someone else's past time that doesn't suck. I mean, think, baseball's only been here for ~100 years, mabey theres something about soccer that keeps it around for everyone else. Mabey we should check it out.

      ~Will

      --
      sig?
    2. Re:Not flamebait by zerocool^ · · Score: 2

      And a couple more parting shots that I just thought of about how baseball sucks...

      1.) Most of the people that you hear about anymore in the all-american past time aren't even American.

      2.) These once-roll models for our community - according to people on the inside of the league, anywhere from 1/2 to 80% of them to steroids. And they still can't hit like Ruth.

      ~Will

      --
      sig?
    3. Re:Not flamebait by gowen · · Score: 2, Informative
      And they still can't hit like Ruth.
      Hmmm. Barry Bonds 2001 -- More home runs, more walks, better SLG%, better OBP%. Not necessarily better than Ruth, but certainly Ruthian.
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    4. Re:Not flamebait by gowen · · Score: 1
      I mean, these are premium seats, and the 3 people in the section are all scrambling over the chairs to get to the ball.
      If your dad bought you tickets out in the bleachers and told you they were premium seats, he was lying. Premium seats are on the lowest level, behind the batter and up the first and third baselines. Everywhere.
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    5. Re:Not flamebait by awol · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I have a real problem with a sport in which there is no time limit.

      Intesting, I think what you mean is you don't like long games. Baseball lasts fourish hours, there are other games that last much longer and yet have limited time (for example test match cricket five days, golf four days, even limited overs cricket, six hours). I am no particular fan of MLB (or baseball in general for that matter), in fact _every_ thing that is good about baseball I think is better in limited overs cricket (particularly the "if you get hit by the ball you get a walk" wimpiness. I mean for god's sake if you are too stupid to get out of the way you deserve everything you get :-), however I don't think it's primary flaw is the length of the game, indeed it is precisely the length of test match cricket that makes it such an extraordinary contest.

      I mean, you ain't seen the human condition until you see a guy who has batted for a day and a half in the heat of the indian summer puking his guts up whilst on his way to a big double ton [on ya deano], or someone who had his jaw broken by a ball one day coming back out to bat the next to try and salvage a result for his team [nice one Mr McCosker]. Awesome.

      --
      "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
    6. Re:Not flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mabey theres something about soccer that keeps it around for everyone else

      Well...nope, they both suck ass.

    7. Re:Not flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not flamebait (Score:3, Flamebait)

      Hehehe. Thank you, moderators.

    8. Re:Not flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with the help of steroids of course...... a guy who never hit 40 + in his career before.

    9. Re:Not flamebait by gowen · · Score: 1
      with the help of steroids of course.
      Well, quite possibly, although he has always said he'd take a test at any time.

      a guy who never hit 40 + in his career before.
      He hit 46 in '93, 42 in '96, 40 in '97 and 49 in 2000. Check your facts.

      Regardless, the original posting said "they take steroids ... and they still can't hit like Ruth," so your point is utter mute.
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    10. Re:Not flamebait by ninjalex · · Score: 1

      Yeah, with watered down pitching, a shorter mound, a 'hot' baseball, a postage stamp strike zone, body armor(never mind the umps have taken the inside 1/8 of the plate away from the pitchers), and walls less than 330 in the corners. Hell if Ruth were playing today, he'd hit 100 HR's.

      --
      Banned from moderation 01-27-2002. Fuck you too /.!
    11. Re:Not flamebait by gowen · · Score: 1
      Yeah, with watered down pitching
      Need I remind you that Ruth hit everyone of his homeruns off Caucasian pitchers. If the ban on black players didn't water down the talent pool, its hard to imagine what might. And that was when pitchers started on 3 days rest, and threw 120+ pitch complete games. If you think they were throwing as fast as todays relief pitchers throw, you've a weird concept of biomechanics.
      a 'hot' baseball
      Evidence please. No study of any of the new baseballs has shown the slightest difference. The 'hot' baseball theory is a fiction created by old-timers who couldn't hit for power as well as the present generation (i.e. Joe Morgan). The players are amped up on dietary supplements, serious weight-lifting and (sometimes) steroids. Of course the ball goes a fucking long way when they hit it.
      a postage stamp strike zone
      Riiiggghhhhtttt. Like that postage stamp Livan Hernandez had in the '97 NLCS...

      Hell if Ruth were playing today, he'd hit 100 HR's.
      Evidence? A hell of a lot of SABRemetric types have done a lot of work on exactly that question. None has reached the same conclusion as you. Where are your numbers?
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    12. Re:Not flamebait by gowen · · Score: 1
      and walls less than 330 in the corners
      Pop quiz hot shot: How deep is the short porch in right field Yankee Stadium? 314 ft.

      How deep was it when it Ruth played there? 295 ft

      PacBell park is 307 ft down right field line, and usually has the wind coming in off the bay. Tell me again how ballpark dimensions favour the modern player. To call Yankee Stadium "the House That Ruth built" is not just metaphor, its dimensions were designed with left-handed pull hitters (ie The Bambino) in mind.
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    13. Re:Not flamebait by ninjalex · · Score: 1

      Ok, so the mound and stadiums you argee favor the latter day hitters.

      watered down pitching
      Less teams. Also you didn't have the NHL, NBA, and NFL watering down the 'white guy' talent pool. A check of league leaders in starting pitching shows exactly one person of color in the top five in wins or era(Pedro Martinez), and 4 out of 10 in the top ten for closers. Closers are a moot point, as they weren't used in Ruth's era. Do I think white dudes are better pitchers? No, I think athletes of color are more likely to play Basketball or Football. In the case of Latinos, most MLB stars of that ethnic group could have pitched or played a position in the field(much as Ruth started off as a pitcher), but for whatever reason ended up playing in the field. Pitching on 3 days rest is not an acient concept(well maybe to you, I'm an old fart). Seaver and Koufax pitched on 3 days rest. They threw hard. I don't see why it would be any different in Ruth's time. Hard doesn't matter anyway. Go ask Mark Wohlers. He threw 100mph fastballs, too bad they didn't move any at all. He had a couple good seasons once he developed a splitfinger. As to the high pitch counts, they didn't care about longevity in those days. If their careers were cut short, it was an expected side effect. They probably did fade more in Sept. though. But the season was shorter then as well.

      hot baseball
      I have a video of Nolan Ryan talking about that(as part of a career retrospective). He says he noticed a difference not in weight or hardness, but with the cover. He said he used to be able to 'crease' the cover, but the ball was too tight for that now. While that wouldn't affect the distance, it would affect the break of the ball greatly. That's modern day. In the dead ball era the center of the ball was all rubber, in 1920 it changed to rubber/cork. Ruth hitting 29 in 1919 is more amazing to me than Mac's 70 or Bond's 72.

      strike zone
      Yeah, toss one game out there for a proof of fact. When is the last time you saw a strike called above the belt? How about the inside corner? Most times a ball 3 inches above the knee was being called a ball before I quit watching baseball.

      Ruth
      Numbers? Hell, lets go dig him up and put him in the batter's box and find out. There is no scientific way Ruth's modern day numbers can be proven. Still, that isn't going to stop people from arguing the point. Difference of opinion is what makes horse races.

      --
      Banned from moderation 01-27-2002. Fuck you too /.!
    14. Re:Not flamebait by ninjalex · · Score: 1

      If it were me, I would have pointed out the polo grounds was only 258 ft to right. Granted it expanded out to 455 in center rather quickly. Or that 3 Rivers was 335 to right. My point was not one of their specific home parks, but of stadiums in general. Even then, not so much as distance in the corners, but in the power alleys. Look at pictures of the older stadiums. There is much more of an arc to the fence than most newer parks.
      http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com

      --
      Banned from moderation 01-27-2002. Fuck you too /.!
    15. Re:Not flamebait by zerocool^ · · Score: 2

      It's more that, rather than long games being what I don't like, it's just that there's nothing to move the game along. When I watch a baseball game, there just doesn't seem to be much happening. I mean, the action happens for, what, twenty seconds at a time? Guy hits the ball, every one runs like mad, in 5 seconds he's on base, and then it takes 3 or 4 minutes to throw the next pitch. Let's see, in baseball, you have 9 innings, top and bottom of both, so 18 rounds, and let's say 8 people bat per round. That's 144 at-bats, which I think is probably a fair or high number. Now, at 20 seconds each, plus another 40 seconds to get situated, and then some time for everything to switch over between sets, I'd say a baseball game should take 2.5 hours. Instead, they take upwards of 4 most of the time. Plus, in 2.5 hours, there's not more than 20 minutes of action, really. People lollygag their way to the plate. People lollygag their way down to first, etc etc.

      I just don't see the intensity or intelligence that baseball requires. I don't think they're there.

      --
      sig?
    16. Re:Not flamebait by Reziac · · Score: 2

      I have to agree with your first point. But ML-calibre players aren't an off-the-shelf item, and teams take 'em where they find 'em.

      But re steroid use, there are physical symptoms that are fairly obvious to the eye -- mainly the Neanderthal browline and chinline, also the shape of a user's muscling is somewhat different, plus they tend to have more broken bones and the infamous 'roid-monster temper. The only ML player I'm dead sure did use steroids is Jose Canseco (compare how he looked and behaved to his identical twin brother, also a ML baseball player but evidently NOT a steroid user).

      Also contrast to the NFL, where steroid use was once almost universal, but has dropped considerably over the past few years. You can see the physical-symptom shifts as use came into and went out of the league.

      Now, as to some of the other enhancements, such as whatever performance-enhancing drug it was that caused a scandal at the last Olympics, that may be another issue, since it apparently doesn't have the obvious physical side effects that make steroid use so easy to spot.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    17. Re:Not flamebait by mother_superius · · Score: 2

      And reduce the ticket prices and stop demanding new stadiums using *MY* money. We rejected the last 5 proposals, GIVE IT UP baseball!

      There, I feel better.

    18. Re:Not flamebait by Buck2 · · Score: 1

      strike zone ...
      Yeah, toss one game out there for a proof of fact. When is the last time you saw a strike called above the belt? How about the inside corner? Most times a ball 3 inches above the knee was being called a ball before I quit watching baseball.


      I believe it was the beginning of last year (it could have been two years ago) when MLB made a promise to enforce the "to the armpits" definition of the strike zone. I don't believe much change was made in the umpire's habits at the time, but after watching games more recently it has DEFINITELY been effective. I've never seen so many high strikes and find myself consistently wanting to say, "Well, that didn't USE to be a strike." (as if that makes any difference)

      It doesn't backpropagate to Bond's stats, but things might be a bit different in the near future. (Of course, he's been on a tear regardless)

      --

      As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
    19. Re:Not flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...actually, there are problems with EPO (erythopoeitin). It does increase your hematocrit, which can be a problem if you get dehydrated...more cells, less fluid, more chances for blockages. Increased hematocrit increases the workload on the kidneys. There are reports of several pro cyclists dying in the '80's and '90's, but they were not upper-tier riders, and they tended to die a few years after being out of the peleton from complications incurred from racing.

      (US) Football players still do 'roids, despite the policies and the drug tests. They may not take them strictly now to increase muscle mass, but more to improve recovery rates, so they can do insane workouts 2-3x or more a week during the offseason, so that the muscle bulk they do put on is "real" (i.e., derived from weight lifting), but the timeframe they do it in is greatly accellerated.

      Like most drug tests, the ones who get caught tend to be the stupid ones (or the smart ones who become careless).

      Even with announced drug tests, there will still be people caught, much like people speeding past plainly obvious traffic police wondering why they get speeding tickets...

  10. What the Slashdot summary fails to mention... by blincoln · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...is that the site owners who were hassled were trying to make money from their sites.
    I don't think *any* corporation has a problem with fan sites that are put together as a resource or community for their subject matter. Most of them are even generous about letting them use their IP.
    What becomes an issue is when the owners of those sites decide to try and use their position for their own gain - for example, selling unauthorized merchandise, as at least one of the people quoted in the article did.
    This is simply the difference between running a Star Trek fan site and using your site to sell bootleg CDRs of the episodes. Even if you're just covering the cost of hosting, it's still a crime, and naive to think that any copyright holder will allow it.

    --
    "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    1. Re:What the Slashdot summary fails to mention... by technix4beos · · Score: 1

      And this means what, exactly?

      Did the sites in question go up to the MLB headquarters with a gun, demand money from the corporation, and walk away rich?

      No.

      The sites were making a "profit" in order to continue the existance of the site that was for the fans of baseball.

      People seem to forget that the overall goal of the sites was to provide information for the public.

      Until the become the next ebay and start selling rare 1940's baseballs, I say they should be left alone. That is of course just my opinion...

      --
      user@host$ diff /dev/urandom /dev/uspto
    2. Re:What the Slashdot summary fails to mention... by flamingmoose · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The sites were making money using MLB-related logos that were not theirs to use.
      There are plenty of informative baseballsites that are not being taken down by MLB.
      They took action against just four sites - don't you think there are more baseball sites than four?

      --

      .sigs - is there anything they can't do?
    3. Re:What the Slashdot summary fails to mention... by GutBomb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      it does not matter what they were using the profit for (to continue the existence of the site) they were using the site to get money. plain and simple. only a few sites were even contacted by MLB, and ofd those, ALL of them were using cafepress to sell unauthorized merchandise.

    4. Re:What the Slashdot summary fails to mention... by egburr · · Score: 2
      I don't think *any* corporation has a problem with fan sites that are put together as a resource or community for their subject matter. Most of them are even generous about letting them use their IP.

      Maybe you should go read Taubman Sucks! about a fansite for a local shoping mall in Texas.

      --

      Edward Burr
      Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
    5. Re:What the Slashdot summary fails to mention... by archen · · Score: 1

      Frasch sells advertising on his site, http://www.bronx-bombers.com, but said it's not even enough to cover costs. And Hoch said he sold all of $16 worth of merchandise at his site -- including $12 spent by his girlfriend.

      Both miss the point, Orlinsky said.

    6. Re:What the Slashdot summary fails to mention... by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      Until there is some sort of public infrastructure that allows anyone to serve on the internet, free of charge, almost all sites are going to have to make some money, just to pay for bandwidth. Many people are willing to devote many hours of their own time for no other reason than to do a service for other people. But to actually spend money out of their own pockets? It's a rare person who will do that. Those sites are just trying to stay afloat.

      "...and you're naive to think that any copyright holder will allow it."

      I think that the underlying issue here is "why is this a crime at all?". I believe the only point of trademark is to make sure that people don't sell a product pretending to be yours. I can't sell videogames and call them "nintendo" because I would be falsely saying that these videogames were made by nintendo. But if you're just using their logo as a way of referring to their product? I don't see the problem with it, and preventing that just oversteps the scope of what trademarks should be.

    7. Re:What the Slashdot summary fails to mention... by mrscorpio · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up! I can't believe I had to scroll down this far to find someone who GOT it. I read this article earlier this morning on MSNBC and figured that out immediately. MLB is not going after you're everyday average fan site, but people who are trying to make a buck (even if it is for hosting costs in most cases, and even if they are not making back their investment).

      Chris

    8. Re:What the Slashdot summary fails to mention... by pla · · Score: 1

      Until there is some sort of public infrastructure that allows anyone to serve on the internet, free of charge, almost all sites are going to have to make some money, just to pay for bandwidth

      I agree with you in spirit, and you would have to look hard to find someone as anti-corporate as myself.

      Keeping that in mind, people do not have the "right" to put up fan-sites that the target of their fandom has to pay for. Even if that means selling clone merchandise, or media clips, or even site memberships, that money *DOES* come from a pool that otherwise may well have gone to the "real" owners of such material.

      Yes, hosting a site on the internet costs money. No, the Yankees don't have any obligation to pay little Billy's hosting fees for his fan site.


      I think that the underlying issue here is "why is this a crime at all?

      It counts as a crime because the *specific* sites MLB targeted made money off the MLB, in some cases *directly*. If they have a local fabric printing shop make up a dozen "classic team logo" hats and sell them "just to cover hosting costs", they have still *stolen* the property of those teams. Now, if they did that just for personal use, no one would care (though the legality of it gets a bit questionable there). But if they *sell* them on-line, they have most certainly committed a crime.

      In such a situation, these kids should feel lucky that they *only* received a C&D letter. Sporting groups generally pursue merchandising rights infringement VERY heavily, putting as many people behind bars as possible.


      Basically, if people want to host fan sites, they can. If, on the other hand, they start selling apparently-MLB merchandise, posting insider info, offering pirated media clips of "The Best Home-Run Ever", etc, they cannot. Personally, I don't see a problem with this, and I believe people with *real* fan sites will see this from a similar perspective - By weakening the boundry between "infringement" and "fandom", such sites as those from this article risk bringing legal action down on *all* fan sites (technically, even mentioning team names and logos could count as infringing use, but one tolerated due to it arguably falling under the 1st amendment).

    9. Re:What the Slashdot summary fails to mention... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry but I don't buy that. Several fan sites were nothing more than mouth pieces for real fans (remember them Bud Selig and Donald Fehr?) to exchange their views on their teams, provide other fans with a greater depth of information that that being handed out at mlb.com, etc.

      But, more than anything, what these fans sites provided was greater publicity for the game. Sure, not every fan site was positive about the state of the game, but why would they be with a strike looming, $252 million salaries, a glaring disparity between small and large market teams and a draft that doesn't do what it's meant to do?

      If you were a die-hard Kansas City Royals fan, following a team that was going nowhere and with no chance of that changing for the forseeable future then why should I put on a "life is rosy" smile for the world?

      It's precisely because these sites don't always tow the line that they are being censored. The issue of copyright infringement - in some cases, this was no more than a few pictures of players wearing MLB uniforms - was simply the baseball bat (pardon the pun) used to clobber them.

      It's a real shame. But MLB isn't exactly known for showing common sense and doing the right thing so why would this be any different?

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    10. Re:What the Slashdot summary fails to mention... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you some kind of communist? Making money is good.
      Why don't you go after the MLA as well for making money.
      Baseball + communism? What's next?

    11. Re:What the Slashdot summary fails to mention... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because they have the right to do it doesn't make their actions any less dickheaded.
      As people did point out, the NFL has no problem with fans sites.
      Technically they are in the wrong to have a historical archive of team logos, or use the league accroynm on their site.
      Practically, the 0.000000000001% of the profits and advertising that is being diluted is hardly worth pissing off the fans.

      I notice you have a major stick up your ass about this too, given how you're posting all over the topic in their defence.

    12. Re:What the Slashdot summary fails to mention... by mrscorpio · · Score: 1

      The NFL never said it wasn't trying to shut down sites that charges money with NFL trademarked content. I think the addition of this comparison in the article was of the unfair "apples and oranges" type, because MLB isn't shutting down free-as-in-beer sites either.

      Chris

    13. Re:What the Slashdot summary fails to mention... by blincoln · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's unfortunate. I'm really surprised. Even total copyright zealots like Viacom/Paramount don't seem to give people trouble if they're not making money from their fan sites.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    14. Re:What the Slashdot summary fails to mention... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, but if you had a game for N64 and didn't want to pay Nintendo the $$$ to "license" the cartridge and pinout specs, good luck publishing it. Had you hacked the cartridge details, Nintendo would have similarly sued your ass off in court.

      I've seen a couple non-SCEA-blessed PS/2 games in stores, but not too many...

    15. Re:What the Slashdot summary fails to mention... by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      You can put all "intellectual property" under the same catergory, but it shouldn't be. All I was trying to say was that while trademark has its place, the example here is just abuse, and what the MLB is doing shouldn't be okay.

    16. Re:What the Slashdot summary fails to mention... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't seem to find any mention of this (the cafepress angle), but assuming it's true, that's still no reason to shut down a fan's site. If you sell counterfeit merchandise, gucci doesn't tell you to shut down your entire shop, just cease selling the bogus goods. get it?

      There's nothing wrong with selling advertising either, assuming the site's proprietors are providing most of the content (which they seem to be, even if it's opinion and statistics).

      Newspapers write articles, and if their game photos happen to include an MLB logo, are they going to sue the paper for IP copyright issues? I think not. Even though they also sell advertising alongside the content.

  11. This says it all by leviramsey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The NFL is one of the few major businesses which has a modicum of sense. Consider this quote:

    "To the extent that it's purely a noncommercial site devoted to commentary about the team, we're supportive and happy that fans are excited about our sport," says Paula Guibault, NFL senior counsel. "It's not an issue for us."

    What the NFL realizes is that fan sites are good: they are free promotion (I know a few people who ran a Scottish Claymores fansite. When the club decided to do a new official site, they hired them to do it), and the people who run and read those sites are the hardcore fans, who either shell out hundreds of dollars a year for season tickets or who subscribe to the NFL Sunday Ticket.

    Yet again baseball shoots itself in the foot, thanks to a management that has been slow to adapt to any change over the past 80 years. For instance, as late as 1930, none of the three New York teams allowed radio coverage of the games for fear that it would cut into the gate. It wasn't until the 70's that baseball teams began allowing televising of all games.

    1. Re:This says it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did I miss the story about the RIAA merging with MLB, so they could share their anti-consumer tricks?

    2. Re:This says it all by mrscorpio · · Score: 1

      This person is not "Insightful", this person didn't read the article!

      Baseball is not going after your average Joe Baseball Fan Webmaster. They are going after Mr. JBFWM who charges money on their site and uses intellectual property of MLB (logos, etc.). They have every right to go after these people, it's trademark violation.

      Read the article (again?) and you should see this.

      Chris

    3. Re:This says it all by benzapp · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      And then the bastards sold out to other cities!!!! They actually thought everyone was going to leave NYC and California would be the new heaven.

      How can the Giants no longer be in the Empire State? The CITY of Giants??? It is an abomination.
      Now SF and LA are the biggest jokes in the world. hahahaha. Fuck baseball.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    4. Re:This says it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh fuck you. Innocently using a trademark on a fansite is not a fucking crime you anal retentive asshole. You're not even supposed to say "MLB" without permission........ fuck that

    5. Re:This says it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice how you yet again forget the "charge money" portion of "using the trademark".

      I have not charged money for you to read my post including MLB, so I am not improperly using it. Flame on, Mr. Troll.

    6. Re:This says it all by Ray+Kerby · · Score: 1

      And many of the fansites targeted by MLB do not attempt to generate any revenue. So... your premise is invalid.

  12. Mixing American Pastimes by Inominate · · Score: 5, Funny

    They're just mixing the great american pastimes of baseball and lawsuits.

    1. Re:Mixing American Pastimes by technix4beos · · Score: 1

      hrm... both areas of "play" use wooden instruments to make their point.

      --
      user@host$ diff /dev/urandom /dev/uspto
  13. Good God. by Steve+Cox · · Score: 2

    Imagine if sites dedicated to rounders were removed in the UK.....

    1. Re:Good God. by Space+cowboy · · Score: 2

      Out of all the posts here, that one made me laugh out loud:-))

      Simon.

      --
      Physicists get Hadrons!
  14. Major League Baseball Pushing mlb.com by OaITw · · Score: 3, Informative

    Major League Baseball is aiming for mlb.com to be a supper site that meets all baseball fan needs. I would guess that the director of the mlb.com asked the legal division to rain in the none mlb.com sites a little bit with the aim of increasing their own sites hits and revenue.

    This is a pretty good strategy for baseball actually. First is provides uniformity to there product. If all fans start there baseball related news gathering by going to mlb.com you get a central influence on news and hype. Second it produces general revenue. This is exactly what baseball needs right now. Of course no general revenue source can overcome the local revenue associated with ticket sales; but baseball needs to look for as much shared revenue as possible in order to reestablish parity. A fan site devoted to the Yankees is taking eyeballs from advertising that benifits all teams.

    I have been converted. I think mlb.com is the best professional sports web portal. I used to go the WGN to listen to Cubs baseball on the web but mlb.com centralized web broadcasting of baseball games. I still can hear the Cubs with WGN broadcasters but I have the pay the $10 a season on mlb.com. For this $10 you get the ability to listen to every other team also. And I am guessing the revenue is shared.

    Since I like the Cubs it is bad in a way that my dollars are shared but for all the fans of Yankees and Mets doing the same thing, it is good for me and the Cubs that some of their dollars are shared.

    1. Re:Major League Baseball Pushing mlb.com by leviramsey · · Score: 1
      I think mlb.com is the best professional sports web portal.

      The old NFL.com (back in the days when Starwave still ran the site... before CBS Sportsline took it over) was pretty good. The new style, where it's more of a network of individual team sites and league run/affiliated sites (NFL Europe, NFL Players Association, etc.) with a consistent top-frame with links to the other sites just isn't the same, since each site is structured differently.

      It's ironic, isn't it? The NFL, which has strong collectivist tendencies and a general herd instinct, leaves most of the web presence up to the teams, while MLB, which exercises minimal control over its teams, centralizes.

    2. Re:Major League Baseball Pushing mlb.com by Renderer+of+Evil · · Score: 1
      A fan site devoted to the Yankees is taking eyeballs from advertising that benifits all teams.

      And we all know how MUCH money web advertising generates. *snickers*

      "Hey! Look, I just bought a Ferrari with those link exchange banners I've been running on my page devoted to Yo Momma Jokes."

    3. Re:Major League Baseball Pushing mlb.com by beowulfcluster · · Score: 1

      I'm a football (soccer) fan, following the English Premier league and the Premiership 'supper site that meets all baseball fan needs' is something that we'll probably never get. The main reason is that all the official sites, both those run by the teams and the official premier league site all tow the party line and publish nice, safe news with the same old cliche quotes recycled over and over again. Then you have the big independent football news sites who also try to be the 'meets all needs' site, who in the time honored tradition of the british gutter press drum up exclusive after exlusive where 2+2 = 5, just to bring the punters in. Since neither no information nor misinformation meets my needs, I've chosen neither and use the small fan sites dedicated to each club instead. You get more interesting and correct information on the forums of the fan sites in one day than you get in a month on the big news sites. I only visit the big site(s) for match statistics and the like.

      Things might of course be different in the MLB world, but I find it difficult to believe baseball fans are so different from football fans that the organization's view of what a fans needs are will ever match the fans own views of what their needs are.

    4. Re:Major League Baseball Pushing mlb.com by CProgrammer98 · · Score: 1

      A supper site? What will I be able to buy to eat there?

      --
      And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour Isaiah 3:5
    5. Re:Major League Baseball Pushing mlb.com by Ride-My-Rocket · · Score: 2

      Major League Baseball is aiming for mlb.com to be a supper site that meets all baseball fan needs.

      Haven't you ever considered what an MLB supper consists of? $3 pretzels, $5 hot dogs and $7 beers....... the sticker shock and nutritional value alone are enough to send a person into anaphylactic shock.

      No thanks..... I'll stay home and cook my own meals.

    6. Re:Major League Baseball Pushing mlb.com by Party+Remover · · Score: 1

      MLB.com is a cheez-whiz site. The news stories and other features are all written by staff writers who are paid by MLB.com, and it shows in the quality of the journalism. Everything is sugarcoated and refined, with any nasty pieces of controversy neatly filtered from the final product. You can read the columns, but don't bother looking for any opinion pieces, because the only opinions expressed on the site (outside of the heavily moderated fan forums) are those approved by MLB, Inc.

      Are you wondering why those two players from the same team appeared to be shouting/shoving at each other in the dugout? Don't expect to find the answer in MLB.com's coverage of the game -- if you rely on that, you won't even know that it happened. Same with the Canseco/Caminiti steroid allegations that made a huge splash earlier this year. On planet MLB.com, those things didn't take place.

      "A supper site that meets all baseball fan needs"? Maybe if you're, like, 6 years old. At my age, though, I'd like to see the whole story.

      MetsOnline.net provided that if you were a Mets fan, like I was. The operator, Bryan Hoch, founded the site as a 14-year-old high school student in 1996. In 1996, MLB was ignorant of technology, never mind the Internet. A friend who worked for a satellite TV provider tells me while the NFL would send over a database, MLB submitted their annual game schedule information on handwritten spreadsheets. MLB.com, meanwhile, belonged to a law firm. Mets.com was a porn site. No, I'm not kidding. It really was -- I know, because I went there while trying to find a Mets site in 1996.

      MetsOnline.net was a beautiful thing. Hoch administered the site and, over the course of the next 6 years, developed into a competent sports journalist. The Mets gave him a press pass, for crying out loud. He was part of the team's press corps, and the stories he ran on his site were straight, hard reporting. The site grew to be very popular.

      Consquently, though, it was becoming a very expensive hobby. The hosting charges were $hundreds per month, and Hoch began attempting to defray the cost by accepting PayPal donations and selling MetsOnline.net t-shirts and caps. Was he in violation of trademark law? Yeah, probably.

      MLB's response to this violation, however, was completely out of proportion. Rather than contact him through the team (with which he already had a working relationship) or ask him to stop selling merchandise, they instead whipped out the big lawyer guns and ordered him to shut down the site and transfer the domain name to them within 5 calendar days. There was no room for discussion or negotiation; Hoch's only recourse was to secure legal counsel and fight (a tall financial order for a 20-year-old college student).

      MLB was absolutely within its legal rights. They were also a bunch of bullying shitheads about the way they safeguarded those rights. This is not a black and white issue, as the NFL rep's quote illustrated. MLB chose to make it a black and white issue, though, and took a premeditated, hostile action against over 15,000 of its fans (and one especially hardworking one, in particular).

      They do not deserve your understanding or favorable legal interpretation. They deserve only your scorn, and if you're still supporting MLB or any of its teams with your money (by attending games, buying merchandise or subscribing to pay sports channels for the sake of watching their games), you are a sucker.

    7. Re:Major League Baseball Pushing mlb.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Major League Baseball is aiming for mlb.com to be a supper site that meets all baseball fan needs.

      You mean I can now order a Dodger dog any time I want now, and I don't even have to step foot inside the stadium? How cool is that!

    8. Re:Major League Baseball Pushing mlb.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we can't even get $7 beers out in section 39 at yankee stadium ... some crap about us fighting too much

  15. oh well by GoatPigSheep · · Score: 2

    Fan sites are just what baseball needs, as it's popularity has been seriously declining over years, being sidelined by more trendy sports such as basketball (which in itself is a joke, as it's 8 foot tall black guys throwing a ball into a hoop a foot above them). The article mentioned that they had advertising on their sites (and thus could in theory make money, which the teams wouldn't want) but most sites these days need advertising just to cover bandwidth costs. It's baseball digging it's own grave.

    But then again, who here really cares about sports anyway?

    --
    GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
    1. Re:oh well by Snoopy77 · · Score: 1

      Just want to clarify a few things.

      Most basketball players range from around 6ft 2in to about 7ft 2in. I think the tallest ever player was about 7ft 8in (and he wasn't even black). And the hoop is not 9ft high, it's 10ft I believe.

      And yes, there are people here who do care about sports and even play them *gasp*. Why some people here might even be healthy, could possibly enjoy sunlight and may have a girlfriend whose name is not sexygirl445 who looks suspiciously like Pamela Anderson.

      --
      "She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
  16. No news? by Mr_Silver · · Score: 2
    It's business, not personal, baseball officials said. They moved against the four Web sites over the alleged use of team logos or trademarks to draw site traffic or turn a profit.

    So .. in short, you're more than welcome to run a baseball fan site just so long as you don't use the team logos without permission to bring people to the site or make some money.

    This is hardly an infringement of civil rights. It's their logo, if you don't have permission to use it or you're trying to make a buck off it, then they have every right to close you down.

    --
    Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    1. Re:No news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real question is: what is making a profit and what is covering expenses? Why should logos even be trademarked? I think you are missing the point in that trademark law was not established to protect corporate interest. On the contrary, it was establishe to protect the little guy from infringement by the big corporations. I see no problem in a fan hosting a site about public entertainment, with logos, and make some money off of it. As it was stated, the money recieved was barely enough to cover the cost of the site. I say it's high time frivilous trademark suits be made illegal.

    2. Re:No news? by Fastolfe · · Score: 2

      The real question is: what is making a profit and what is covering expenses?

      I'm afraid it doesn't really matter. Once you slap advertising on your site and try to sell your site's content to advertisers, you've gone commercial. It doesn't matter that it isn't successful or that the incoming cash doesn't balance the costs of the business, it's still legally a commercial venture at that point.

      I see no problem in a fan hosting a site about public entertainment, with logos, and make some money off of it.

      I completely agree, but unfortunately it's up to the trademark holders here, and they've spoken. The problem is that you are using their logos to say "hey, come over here! we have XYZ-related content on this site!". Without the use of their logos, the site owners would (arguably!) not be able to attract the same size audience they usually would, which would impact the amount of money they take in through advertising. Here, the presence of the trademarked logo has a direct impact on the money the site owner receives through its advertisers. This is the problem the MLB is trying to address: the use of their logos to attempt to make a profit.

      Now, I totally agree that it's kind of stupid for them to be going after fan sites like this, especially in these times. I think what they're doing is kind of silly, but I'm trying to present the above in a more rational way so that you're aware of their line of reasoning here.

  17. Re:dirtbag by radja · · Score: 2

    good thing soccer only exists in the US then, the rest of the world plays football. Coincidence? I think not.. ;) //rdj

    --

    No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
    --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
  18. Good Ridance by The+Big+Dude · · Score: 1

    When I was growing up I never watched american soccer and baseball, I always watched NFL and NBA. I still watch NFL and NBA but I also watch soccer. Guess what, I still don't watch baseball. Nobody I know watches MLB, its too boring. They just read the scores in the paper while they're in the shitter. Hopefully the MLB goes out of business so America can get a new pastime. I think my favorite sport now is soccer.

  19. take me out to the ballgame by t0qer · · Score: 2

    take me out to the crowds

    where i'll pay 10 dollars for cracker jack
    wont have enough money to drive my car back

    Lets build the giants a stadium
    let the panhandlers sleep on the street

    cause it's 1 2 3 strikes your out ......

    Fuck it, Its 4:30, cartoons are on.

    1. Re:take me out to the ballgame by gowen · · Score: 1
      Lets build the giants a stadium
      The only people who built the Giants a stadium were the Giants owners. Of all the major new ballparks, you picked the only one that was privately financed.
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    2. Re:take me out to the ballgame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Fuck it, Its 4:30, cartoons are on."

      'Cause by then you're good an stoned so they're much more fun to watch. :)

    3. Re:take me out to the ballgame by Safety+Cap · · Score: 2
      you picked the only one that was privately financed.
      What kind of tax set-asides and credits did the city give them?

      Does that count as part of the "private" (i.e., by the average private citizen) financing?

      --
      Yeah, right.
    4. Re:take me out to the ballgame by gowen · · Score: 1
      What kind of tax set-asides and credits did the city give them?
      Very little. See this article from the SF Business Times.
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  20. Business not Personal by AngstMerchant · · Score: 1

    "It's business, not personal, baseball officials said. " Thank God for the Industrial Revolution and the separation of personal and professional life. It allows us to be truly shitty and unreasonable to gobs of people and not feel a bit of guilt over the suffering it causes. This tactic is especially enjoyable if it results in cash or prizes.

  21. What more excuse do you need? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    Why are baseball fans bothering to hang on? This is like the abusive relationship where the woman keeps thinking the beatings are over. Go to rehab, tell the baseball teams to go fuck themselves. They purposely played the fans like a fiddle during the strike in order to get their demands met ($250 million contract for one player? Fuck and I'm unemployed), now they're shutting down web sites by FANS.

    Maybe they use the same PR firm as the RIAA.

  22. Baseball is Dead by j1mmy · · Score: 1

    It's been dying for a long time, but this is just the nail in the coffin.

    1. Re:Baseball is Dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have Netcraft confirmed it?

  23. Ignorance by AngstMerchant · · Score: 1

    You obviously aren't a sports fan. I'm not either but I have two things to say: A) Basketball is a much more entertaining and high-energy sport than baseball and thusly has a much larger comtemporary following. Do some research and you'll find I'm correct. B) Your thinly-veiled racist comment about basketball players makes you look ignorant. . .and kind of like an a**hole.

  24. good by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 2
    This is just more fuel for the fire in the backlash against MLB. MLB, players and execs, has turned into nothing but a big stupid corporate game, not a sport.

    I hope the sport dies, then maybe it can be reborn as what it should be, an American pasttime.

    Personally, I don't care for baseball, I think it's a boring sport. But, I know people who like it, and most of them have quit paying attention to it these days because they're sick of the BS, except for tuning in now and then for a good laugh at the players, etc. I really hope the sport will eventually be reborn for these fans who actually enjoy the sport.

    I'm sure there will be a hundred more comments just like mine, but that will certainly say something about America's "pasttime"...

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  25. Re:dirtbag by Omar+Enoryt · · Score: 1

    What if he's Italian? Then I guess it would be calcio. Can you say "calcio," dullard. Don't cry.

    --
    I'm a bot. See me in action as "Dead to Rights" in alt.games.video.xbox
  26. How to make baseball better for everyone by Dyslexic · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The main reason you see low attendance at baseball games is because there is oh, I dunno 100 games per team in the regular season.



    American football has maybe a fifth of that and its TV ratings are constantly on top. Not to mention it almost always packs 50,000-seat stadiums to capacity, even if tickets are $50 (or in many cases much more).



    A shorter regular season would make everything worthwhile. No more 30 minutes of highlights on the 11 'oclock news. No more sparsely populated million dollar stadiums (which, urgh, my tax dollars paid for). It would make the game far more exciting, for every game counts tenfold. Teams wouldn't be able to say, "Too bad we lost...oh well we have another 80 games to make it up..."



    Dys.

    --
    This comment is brought to you by the drug caffiene, and the number 5.
    1. Re:How to make baseball better for everyone by Detritus · · Score: 2

      If you want to watch football, watch football. Don't screw up baseball in a misguided attempt to make it attractive to people with short attention spans and no regard for tradition.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:How to make baseball better for everyone by catfood · · Score: 2
      ...there is oh, I dunno 100 games per team in the regular season.

      A hundred sixty-two. (Which only reinforces your point.)

      American football has maybe a fifth of that...

      ...or a tenth.

      Point well taken, but as the other dude says, baseball is the way it is. Trying to make it into a weekend spectacle sport will just ruin it. (Heck, I'm still annoyed over the designated hitter rule. Talk about a kludge!)

    3. Re:How to make baseball better for everyone by Reziac · · Score: 2

      I can live with the DH rule since it helps define differences in style between the two leagues. (Or did, til this interleague-play crap came along and diluted it -- might as well have ONE league now.)

      But .. somewhere above, I rant about the horrible new divisions and playoffs with football style wildcards -- they've made a team's standings pretty much meaningless, since now practically any team can make the playoffs. What the suits who designed the new system didn't understand is that unlike football, baseball isn't just about winning a few times and then it's over. Baseball at its best is part of your everyday life, and while winning is great, losing doesn't mean The End. Tomorrow is another day.

      Example: While my ongoing love is the Angels, I became a closet Cleveland fan while they were chronically in the cellar. They'd be 30 games back, yet they'd come to town, play like maniacs with nothing to lose, and whup the contending Angels by 13-1. You gotta admire that.

      And as I never tire of pointing out... Baseball should be played on grass, in daylight. Football should be played in the mud. :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    4. Re:How to make baseball better for everyone by forkboy · · Score: 2

      I don't think that's the case....

      Look at hockey. Hockey games sell out almost every time, and they play 82 games per season, not too far from what baseball players hit. (And that's not counting playoffs which add could potentially add up to 35 more games to a team's schedule. Oh, and I forgot mention pre-season)

      Not to mention a very large viewership when games are televised...maybe not to the level of football, but still well within the realm of drooling fandom.

      No, the problem with baseball is that the fans feel betrayed by the teams and the players. The first strike made them realize that their big heroes were just in it for the money and don't give a rats ass about the fans. They lost integrity and honor in the eyes of baseball viewers, and it keeps getting worse, what with rampant drug abuse, threats of strikes, and now this intellectual property issue.

      The state of baseball now does make me sad, I used to spend my summers as a kid planning my activities around Cubs games. Now, I could honestly care less. The greed of the players and the greed of the franchises ruined it for everyone.

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
  27. Re:dirtbag by G-funk · · Score: 2

    good thing soccer only exists in the US then, the rest of the world plays football. Coincidence? I think not.. ;) //rdj

    No, no, no, no, no... you english have it all wrong... You guys call soccer football, and you call football Rugby! Sheesh! ;-)

    --
    Send lawyers, guns, and money!
  28. No more trademarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The simple fact of the matter is that trademark/patent law has failed its original purpose: protect the little guy. In this case, devoted fans we not diluting the MLB trademarks but were actually helping to promote it. The next thing you know, people doing reviews of products will be targeted because they aren't "officially" endorsed. I urge people to ignore these phony cease & desist letters. You have a right to freedom of speech and expression, which clearly these people were exercising. In no way did their acts impede the rights of MLB. It's high time we legislate away frivilous trademark litagation, making illegal to sue private individuals for hosting a fan site. People just need to stand up and tell these A*#holes to F&*k off. The more people who do it, the less effective their tactics become. Eventually, this type of expression will make it to the Supreme Court where (hopefully) it will be upheld under the first amendment. All that's required is a few childeren getting on CNN or something similar to cause some outrage in America.

    1. Re:No more trademarks by reallocate · · Score: 2

      Where did you pick up the notion that trademark and patent law is intended to protect "the little guy"? They're intended to protect the holder of a trademark or patent. Ditto copyright.

      Throwing lawyers at fan sites is not a smart move by MLB, but semi-coherent whinings on /. won't do any good, either.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  29. Time limits? by fruey · · Score: 2
    Unless a draw is an acceptable outcome, you need a proper deciding endgame. Since baseball is all about hitting the ball as hard as you can away from fielders, it's difficult to get an endgame out of it except extra innings. Unless you go into statistics calculations.

    Cricket has a draw system for long games, and one day games have limits in the number of balls bowled (that's pitched to the ignorant). Far superior technically too. American sports all suffer from one thing: "jock" culture. Whilst there are exceptions, most of it is about sponsorship, hitting hard, stopping frequently for commercials, and statistics. *yawn*

    Soccer is by far the best sport in terms of accessibility, simplicity of rules, and yet eventual complexity of the game. Great footballers are always those with the best touch, not just some hard kicker, agressive player, etc. Plenty other sports are around which are superior to baseball anyway. None of us outside the US even care, we just laugh that a sport like baseball could have been so popular in the first place.

    --
    Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    1. Re:Time limits? by hawk · · Score: 2
      > we just laugh that a sport like baseball could
      >have been so popular in the first place.


      Hmm, maybe there *is* something to the old soviet claim that Russian's invented baseball; it clearly has a lot in common with russian novels . . . although I'm not quite sure what the analogy to committing suicide by jumping off your manuscript is . . .

      :)


      hawk

    2. Re:Time limits? by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Um.. baseball is NOT just about "hitting the ball as hard as you can away from the fielder". Know what a bunt is? Didn't think so. Baseball is, if anything, more complex than soccer, and it literally IS (as the old saying goes) a game of inches -- check out how many microsecond-close plays there are at first base, and you'll realise how well-designed the game really is.

      Just as in soccer, the best baseball players are also those with the best touch, ie. the ability to throw or hit the ball *exactly* where they want it to go. The best fielders have "soft hands". The best players are those who "do all the little things right". Hitting and pitching stars get big press, and they'll often win a game in a pinch, but the everyday players are what keep a team in contention. That's why no one cares if a good second baseman can hit above .200, or if a good shortstop never hits a home run in his whole career.

      Tinker to Evans to Chance. :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    3. Re:Time limits? by Buck2 · · Score: 1

      You're casting pearls before swine. The development of an appreciation of baseball is probably even more difficult than that of soccer. I think the only reason I can say that I enjoy watching baseball is because I played it for so many years. The same can probably be said by many soccer fans if they would just stop and think about how boring their favorite game looks to the marginally initiated.

      It seems pretty rare to me that a fan will spontaneously develop an appreciation of baseball unless it happens stealthily while they're still young and come to think of the ballpark as a fun place.

      --

      As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
    4. Re:Time limits? by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      I think the only reason I can say that I enjoy watching baseball is because I played it for so many years.

      The same can be said for most sports. You have to try it once to appreciate how good the stars are. Take snooker (OK, not the best example of "sport"), if you haven't tried it (on a full size table), you wouldn't realise just how skillful the players are, not only to pot the target ball, but to control the cue ball to bring it to the point on the table they want. To the layman, it's just someone knocking some balls around.

    5. Re:Time limits? by Reziac · · Score: 2

      You're absolutely right -- frex, I'm not a soccer fan, and it's hard for me to see the subtleties of the game, tho I'm sure they exist. Baseball being what it is, must be even harder for an outsider to appreciate, especially since baseball has its own language. (Imagine telling a fan with dumb questions to "RTFM" when the fan doesn't speak Baseball. :)

      While I think you're right that in most cases a person has to grow up with a sport to really get into it, I'm one of the rarities who came to baseball as an adult with no prior interest to speak of, during the 1986 World Series. Bill Buckner's famous all-day-at-bat was probably the turning point in my understanding of the game. I think to love a sport, you have to at least somewhat understand it, otherwise it's just visual noise.

      (One word: golf. :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    6. Re:Time limits? by fruey · · Score: 1
      I was exaggerating to make the point. You can add complexity in rules and running, and of course I do know what a bunt is. I've played base- and softball a lot. I just don't appreciate the finer things like statistics etc. I know that good plays make it a better game, but it's based too much on small margins requiring TV replays to add enough excitement to the modern game.

      Irony never comes across very well if you don't take enough time to construct your English, and yet I keep attempting to do it *sigh*

      --
      Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    7. Re:Time limits? by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2

      You've got it there, Buck2.

      I was always a fan. Then I started playing (synagogue league softball), and I started appreciating what I saw more. Then I started coaching (my daughter's softball team -- G-d help them :-P), and can appreciate the beauty and elegance of the game even more.

      As for those philistines who bitch about no time limit, that's also part of the beauty of the game. As Yogi said, "It ain't over till it's over".

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    8. Re:Time limits? by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Okay, I'll forgive you :) Personally I couldn't care less about statistics. I'm much more interested in whether the player "does all the little things right" and is a good *team* player, than whether he hits .350 and 50 homers and runs like a deer. In fact I don't WANT a Jose Canseco or a Ricky Henderson on my team no matter how great their stats are -- their attitudes are too embarrassing, and tend to undermine overall quality of play.

      As to TV replays, the really skilled ones can recreate the rush of beating the throw by half an inch, but I'd agree a lot are just lame "repeat the action" shots, to fill time for people who don't grok the undercurrents. It can actually be quite annoying for real baseball fans. In football.. well, anything beats the camera being glued to the huddle for 20 seconds between every play, which is how it used to be done back in the days when a replay meant rewinding the tape first. Bleah!!

      In APAzines (which til recently were mainly typewritten -- which is more flexible than computer printouts) one often sees the "sarcasm mark" made by overstriking a caret above a period. Don't think I've ever seen an "irony mark" tho the language could certainly use one :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    9. Re:Time limits? by Buck2 · · Score: 1

      I actually always found the "no time limit" aspect of baseball to be a non-problem. To me it represents, "someone needs to win and we're not going to mess around with the way we play the game just because no one has won yet."

      I always thought that sudden death or shootouts or whatever are a copout, an agreement that the game is poorly designed and needs to be "just finished" because the competitors cannot be separated by their skill at the game itself. (One can always expand the definition of the particular game to include the tie-breaking strategy, but that's weak.)

      Usually extra innings are the most exciting and complicated in the ballgame. Pitchers are worn out, players have been subbed. *sigh* It's just tiring to explain sometimes. :)

      --

      As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
  30. I wish... by RebelTycoon · · Score: 1

    1) There was a strike. For then the fans would have left and certainly some teams would have gone bankrupt.

    2) That this crack-down nonsense would end. For it is these types of fans that baseball would need the next time it goes on strike.

    3) That baseball would die. Sure its America's favorite past time, but its also starting to look like America's biggest problem! GREED!!!

    Major League Baseball casts Americans in the worst light possible. Here is a sport where some of the top paid players can't speak a word of English, but worst still, these players seem less inteligent then other sports (next to boxing and football).

  31. What does the RIAA and MLB have in Common? by RebelTycoon · · Score: 1

    Both are doing their best to turn their customers into thieves and through their policy actively encourage their most loyal fans to seek other sources of entertainment!

    My prediction? Both the RIAA and MLB will need to loose big money before they wake up!

    Oh, and Canadians.. Congradulations on showing the Blue Jays and Expos just what would of happened with a strike... and a 15% drop in CD sales in Canada... Good job!!!

    1. Re:What does the RIAA and MLB have in Common? by beruche · · Score: 1

      The Expos are dead in the water since the league really doesn't want them there. The 'Jays will always be around, as much as it pains us West Coasters to cheer for a Toronto team. (Most out here throw their hats to Seattle anyways.

      Anyways, we have hockey. Who needs something that's slow, painful and won't end?

      I liked baseball till strike #1. That was more then enough for me.

    2. Re:What does the RIAA and MLB have in Common? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not up here in canada

  32. "World Series" by fantomas · · Score: 2

    Is this where we get to make the gag about baseball having a world series that is only for American teams? (I'd heard Cubans and Japanese are pretty good at baseball but they don't seem to take part)

    Even cricket has more countries playing at the top level...

    1. Re:"World Series" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " a world series that is only for American teams?"

      No, it's a World Series (TM). The canadians play too.

    2. Re:"World Series" by hawk · · Score: 2
      >Is this where we get to make the gag about
      >baseball having a world series that is only for
      >American teams?


      Only if you're ignorant enough to read "world" as "global," "international," or some such.


      The "World Series" is an event put to gether by the New York World's sports department, producing a series between the champions of the two major baseball leagues. The World, of course, has exclusive marketing and coverage rights, and sells more papers for a week or two . , ,


      The World is long gon, but the series continues . . .


      [As a side issue, even if we ignore reality and assume that other nations belong in this american series, the cuban and japanese teams just wouldn't be on the same level, any more than the rest of the world agains the US olympic basketbal team, or against Japanese sumo wrestlers]


      hawk, who never came back from the last baseball strike, anyway

    3. Re:"World Series" by stubear · · Score: 2

      Actually the World Series was created by the owners of the Boston Red Sox. They felt thay had the best ball team in the, at the time, major leagues (I forget the actual league name). They challenged the next best ball team to a championship series (best of 5 I believe) and it would be the most spectacular championship the world had ever seen, hence the name WOrld Series. The name as stuck and teh Red Sox took most of the series until 1918 when they sold Babe Ruth to the New York Yankees and teh Red Sox haven't won a series since. They've come close only to lose it on a stupid error or other mishap.

    4. Re:"World Series" by ZxCv · · Score: 2

      Is this where we get to make the gag about baseball having a world series that is only for American teams?

      Sssh, no one tell the Toronto Blue Jays or the Montreal Expos.

      --

      Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
    5. Re:"World Series" by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Wrong, apparently....

      From snopes urban legend page linked on other comment:

      Origins: For nearly a century now, baseball's annual championship, the World Series, has been an essential American ritual. The modern World Series began in 1903, when the National League's pennant-winning Pittsburgh Pirates agreed to a best-of-nine playoff series against the Boston Pilgrims, champions of the upstart American League (which had made the jump from minor league to major league just two years earlier). After a one-year interruption in 1904 (when the New York Giants refused to meet the Boston Pilgrims because -- depending upon which story you believe -- the Giants' owner refused to allow his team to compete against the "inferior" American League or the Giants' manager hated the American League's president), the series resumed as a best-of-seven affair in 1905 and has been waged every autumn since (save for 1994, when it was cancelled due to a players' strike).

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    6. Re:"World Series" by fantomas · · Score: 2

      I thought Canada was in North America... give me some names of the Cuban or Japanese teams who take part? ;-P

  33. Re:dirtbag by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · · Score: 2

    Soccer also exists in Australia and Canada. "Football" probably doesn't exist in most non-English speaking lands. It's highly possible that if you threw all English-speaking people together, showed them a man kicking a black and white ball, asked them what it was called, that most would say "soccer". But it's not likely, as I think they call it "football" in India.

  34. Rights vs. business sense by dtmos · · Score: 5, Interesting

    To me this is a case of operating within one's rights, to the detriment of one's business. Baseball has done this in spades for as long as I can remember, and it's finally beginning to affect the business.

    I have had season tickets to a major league baseball team for the past ten years, meaning that during that time I have seen over 750 games (I've had to miss a few due to business trips, etc.). The basic attitude of the team and MLB in general, seems to be that fans are obligated to attend, regardless of how they are treated.

    Probably the best example of this is the stadium's "security" policy regarding material one may bring to the games. I would like to bring in things like a score book, media guide, binoculars, sunscreen, pencils, etc., but they won't allow a bag larger than 8-1/2" x 11" (21.5 cm x 28 cm) into the stadium--even if you let them search the bag, or even empty it out at the feet of the inspector. The bag itself is not permitted, for some reason. However, they *will* allow women's purses and infants' diaper bags of any size, and they don't perform body searches or use metal detectors--whatever is in your pockets or under your clothes is yours to keep.

    What they *think* they are accomplishing by this I cannot imagine, but I can say what they *are* accomplishing: As a result of this policy I can always tell a new, prospective fan, going to a game for the first time--I pass him walking back out to the parking lot as I am walking in, carrying the bag or knapsack he quite reasonably expected to be able to take to the game. Or I pass him at the inspector's station at the stadium entrance, presenting rational but useless arguments and expressions of surprise and disbelief to the bored workers there. As a business, the team has the right to set up rules for all those who enter, but the team shouldn't complain when no one bothers to come any more, and new fans prove difficult to attract. It's always been a puzzle to me how baseball owners could have business acumen sufficient to amass personal fortunes, yet run major league baseball as if they were the stupidest form of life on the planet.

    This kind of behavior is rampant in MLB and, barring an unforeseen turnaround, may soon enable baseball to reach the popularity of those other major sports of the 1950's--boxing and horse racing.

    1. Re:Rights vs. business sense by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

      And it is people like you that manage keep baseball just the way it is, are you suprised by any of this?

      Evidently not.

    2. Re:Rights vs. business sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > but they won't allow a bag larger than 8-1/2" x 11"

      Where the hell are you going to games? I've been to 20 MLB venues and none have a rule like this.

  35. Obligatory Simpsons Quote by Tomun · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bart: You're probably wondering about the coat hangers. They're to
    block the satellite that's been spying on me.
    Marge: [with trepidation] Okay ...
    Bart: It can read your electric organizer from space.
    Homer: Even mine? [Bart takes it and smashes it] Hey, I had
    Lenny's name on that!
    Bart: They have it now.
    Lisa: Who are they, exactly?
    Bart: Who else? Major League Baseball.

    http://www.snpp.com/episodes/AABF22

  36. Re:Caffeine is a drug by ComaVN · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What are you saying, I should cut back on coke too?

    --
    Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
  37. Netcraft confirms it! by WhistleBlower · · Score: 1

    yada yada yada... you didn't think I was really gonna type all that out did you?

  38. Re:dirtbag by radja · · Score: 2

    I'm a dutchman... we don't play rugby either, and I watch my 'voetbal' in a coffeeshop.

    then again, dutch coffeeshops have about as much to do with coffee as american football has to do with feet (or balls...)

    //rdj

    --

    No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
    --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
  39. Re:dirtbag by lovebyte · · Score: 1
    1. "Football" probably doesn't exist in most non-English speaking lands.
      Wrong. The term is used in many (if not most) non-english speaking countries.

    2. India is not really an Engligh speaking country.
    --

    I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

  40. The strike. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I've been to one baseball game since the 1994-5 strike--someone gave me tickets and I felt obligated. This isn't making me any more likely to ever go back. Greedy bastards.

    ~~~

  41. Time to Put This Sport Down by Hangtime · · Score: 2

    I was hoping the two sides would be dumb enough to allow a strike to happen, but I was wrong. Now, will someone please take this sport out back and put a bullet through it. Football season starts in six days.

  42. I stop watching a decade ago by wiZd0m · · Score: 1

    As a teenager, I used to buy tickets in the "bleechers" with my friends to watch the most talented Montreal Expos ever. We were going to make it to the series and they came with the strike, cancelled the series and because of the lack of money, the following winter, we lost all our good players.

    I never went back, bought anything anymore or watch or listened to anything associated with MLB ever since.

    There is much better sports anyways

  43. Mets Online is online at Fox Sports by puckhead · · Score: 1

    Bryan Hoch, the guy who operated metsonline before the clueless fucktards at MLB closed it down is now being paid to write a column called METS ONLINE for Fox Sports.

    --
    Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
  44. Do you ever run out of things to complain about? by gelfling · · Score: 2

    Honestly this whole week is a /. "Everything in the whole world is shit, I alone am great and all knowning" moment.

    This used to be such a nice neighborhood how it's just a skater wannabe strip mall.

  45. Play! Don't watch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sports should be played, not watched. Nuff said.

    1. Re:Play! Don't watch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who use "Nuff said" should be shot. Enough said.

  46. Yep... by Fizzlewhiff · · Score: 1

    Its the fan made websites and not the greedy players, owners, and union that have ruined the game. Close down the sites. All I can say is thank God it is football season or there might be a .001% chance that I would give a damn.

    --

    'Same speed C but faster'
  47. Yup. That's the worse. by realgone · · Score: 1
    some of the top paid players can't speak a word of English, but worst still

    *bzsdft*
    There was a penalty on the play -- simultaneous English-language elitism and bad grammar in the same sentence. 15 yards and repeat the post.
    *bzsdft*

  48. At least some of this was resolved... by SwedishChef · · Score: 2

    Apparently MLB Properties hassled the Houston Astros site without the knowledge of the Houston Astros. In "A note to any newcomers to the Astos Daily" dated yesterday and featured prominently on their home page, Ray Kerby, the owner of http://www.astrosdaily.com said, "I just ant to make it clear that the Houston Astros had nothing to do with the "Cease & Desist" letter sent to me by MLB Properties on July 5th."

    The Houston Astos themselves helped resolve the problem between astrostoday.com and MLB Properties which revolved around the use of player photographs. Kerby says that he was a guest of Astros owner Drayton Mclane at a game Sunday just to show there are no hard feelings.

    While I, personally, have elected to boycott professional sports in their entirety due to their attitude of "screw the fans... build us another stadium or we'll leave" attitude, at least in this case the team behaved properly. And the site itself (astrostoday.com) is a very good fan site.

    --
    No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
  49. This message is next to censorship in china... by paai · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one to spot the irony of history?
    Two messages side by side: one about Google being censored in China, the other about baseball fans being persecuted for publishing on internet. There are a lot of lessons here.

  50. Your story is an urban legend by Scratch-O-Matic · · Score: 2

    Read more about it here.

    --


    Evil is the money of root.
  51. but those sound like athletes! by hawk · · Score: 2
    Who was it that said, "I'm not an athlete, I'm a baseball player?"


    hawk

    1. Re: but those sound like athletes! by ninjalex · · Score: 1

      John Kruk, Philadelphia Phillies

      --
      Banned from moderation 01-27-2002. Fuck you too /.!
  52. Guess football guys aren't so dumb by Infonaut · · Score: 2
    Not only does the NFL recognize the value of fans much more then MLB does, the NFL also has a system of revenue-sharing that makes pro football much more interesting to watch from season to season.

    I love baseball, but MLB has consistently refused to get with the program and shake up the paradigm that they built decades ago. When's the last time the Yankees weren't a contender? When's the last time the Dodgers were so bad that nobody could seriously give them any hope of winning their division? Since Turner came along, Atlanta has always been in the running, season after season. The big market teams have huge amounts of money to lavish on the top players, the little guys don't. It's that simple.

    Look at the NFL, on the other hand. In the last few years in particular, every season has been exciting, because it's anyone's guess as to which teams will be the most powerful. There are dynasties in football, but they're nothing like the dynasties in baseball. The Cowboys of the 70s, the 49ers of the 90s, sure. But compare that to the Yankees of the 20th Century, and you see that competition is alive and well in the NFL, but not in MLB.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:Guess football guys aren't so dumb by gowen · · Score: 1
      The big market teams have huge amounts of money to lavish on the top players, the little guys don't. It's that simple.
      If only it were. Every year for the last 5 or so, through good management and an understanding of the game, Oakland have put out a competitive team for almost no money. In the same time period, the Phillies, hamstrung by incompetence at every level, can't compete with shit despite one of the largest fanbases in the Major Leagues.

      Theres revenue sharing in the NBA, but it doesn't stop the Bulls and the Lakers from winning 10 of the last 15 championships, did it?

      Sure, competitive imbalance is partly about money, but it partly isn't.
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    2. Re:Guess football guys aren't so dumb by Infonaut · · Score: 2
      Good points. I'd still say that in general, revenue-sharing leads to a more level playing field. Of course, skilled management and coaching can negate a lot of disadvantages as you pointed out.

      Maybe there's more to it with football. I wonder if there are other factors in the NFL that simply make it more difficult to maintain a dynasty. For example, the number of games in a season is far less than either basketball or baseball. Someone somewhere has probably devoted a lot of time and energy to figuring out why the NFL is more competitive than MLB (if in fact, it statistically is more competitive - it could just be my perception).

      --
      Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  53. Fuck Major League Baseball!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was majorly disappointed when those pricks hammered out a deal on Friday. I was completely hoping they would strike, and drive the final stake through the heart of MLB, and that of their own livelihoods.

    Players: Millionaire crybabies paid twice the money in one night to play a fucking GAME, than I earn in a year working hard at my real job.

    Owners: Billionaire crybabies, getting tax breaks and taxpayer money to build stadiums I can't afford to set foot in-- not that it matters, because all the good seats have already been sold to their corporate sponsors, and I'd be stuck behind some support column in far right field.

    How do either of these groups expect any sympathy at all from the people who now have to spend damn near a week's pay to park at the stadium and buy tickets, food and beverages for a family of four? Fuck those assholes.

    And now cracking down on the few remaining fans who still love the game, by releasing the copyright/trademark hounds on them? Great move, Baseball. Hilary Rosen must be proud.

  54. Already seen some of this by red_dragon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A friend of mine has been running PhilsPhans.com since the beginning of this year with a focus on forum discussions, in response to many people who complained about the forums at the official site being crowded with spammers. The site gathered popularity among Phillies fans pretty quickly, and soon a lot of users from the official Phillies forums switched to the little new site. About a month or so ago, he received a letter from the Phillies ordering him to shut down his site due to "trademark infringement"; their claim was that the word "phils" is their property, and thus he can't use it as part of the site's name. How could anyone trademark such a common word is beyond logic, but since he doesn't have the resources to fight this, so he's being forced to move the site to a different domain.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, Jesus asks: "What Would You Do?"
    1. Re:Already seen some of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. As a Philadelphia resident, why am I not surprised? Like they don't have a small enough fan base after the strike and years of playing like shit, hey, let's alienate the few who remain over trademark issues.

      Even when they do get the occasional decent player, like that fuckwad Scott Rolen, he turns into a whiny bitch in a season or two and demands to be traded to a contender.

      So it appears that "Phils" is trademarked, but if your friend's site is noncommercial and expressly not affilliated with the Phillies, he might stand a chance at fighting it them. If there are any posts critical of the team on there, he can always try playing the 'First Amendment' card.

      With the anti-baseball sentiment these days, I think a jury would probably side with your friend, if it came to that. :-)

    2. Re:Already seen some of this by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Trademarks on common words like that are only in refernce to certain stylized forms, or logos. They can't extend that to any use of the trademark. While your friend probably will get more sympathy by changing the site name, and it is an effective form of protest to "comply and bitch", the accusations are without merit, and likely the lawyers would not have ever followed up on the cease and desist.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:Already seen some of this by csnydermvpsoft · · Score: 1

      We've been running a similar site, The Renegade Phans Phorum, since the beginning of last year. If you go to the site, you notice that we've been very careful in regards to trademark and copyright - the blank red cap on the title, for example, not including the Phillies logo. So far, we have not had a cease and desist letter sent to us, but as a precaution we have also registered PhillyPhans.com - then the city of Philadelphia would have to sue us. 8-)

      If we are to get a letter, we will make as big a media fuss as possible. They may have money on their side, but we have PR on ours. We've had a bit of press in the past, and in addition know of some higher-ups in the Phillies organization that visit the site, and even know a couple personally.

      If you think about it, it really is sad that someone who sets up a site, most of the time on a volunteer basis, to support an organization, is abused by that very organization. I've seen a similar thing happen in the Aircooled VW scene - any site with vw in the URL has gotten a letter, and any use of their logo has also been prohibited. VW has been saying that they will set up a policy spelling out acceptable use of their trademarks and copyrights, but it's been a couple of years, with no news.

      I know that businesses are required to defend their trademarks in order to keep them, but sometimes they just go too far.

  55. Time Limits by dmaxwell · · Score: 2


    Throaty masculine voice:
    Football is rigidly timed and the game WILL end even if we have to go to Sudden Death.

    Simpering squealy voice:
    In Baseball, you don't know when it's gonna end. We might even have to have extra innings.....

    George Carlin

  56. Somewhat true even to a baseball fan :( by Reziac · · Score: 2

    Actually, you're right to some extent even for me, a rabid diehard baseball fan. It stopped being interesting when they introduced interleague play and football[NFL]-style playoffs, with wildcards and more divisions. It took away something that's hard to explain -- about how it's more fun to follow your team with loyal hope even if they're lost in the basement, than it is when anybody and their brother can make the playoffs.

    Supposedly these changes were made to draw more fans, but apparently I'm not alone in my feelings about it, because since then, attendance has dropped 20%. Which is more than the rising price of tickets could account for by itself (consider that movie theatre tickets have risen at a similar pace without killing their audience).

    Tho this notion that a star pitcher is worth $120M annual salary cuts into the fun, too. (Scale for everyday players is what, somewhere around $200k now? Yeah, that's real parity.) Now that's supply and demand run amok. Yeah, there are very damn few major-league calibre pitchers (ill-considered expansion went to prove that there really *are* only about 600 truly ML-quality players in the world at any given moment) but there comes a point when I'd rather watch enthusiastic youngsters in local college games, where this sort of massive egoboo hasn't yet tainted their attitudes.

    BTW, I also love American football, and Australian-rules football is great too. But the best was the mad enthusiasm of the World League (as I think it was called) -- NFL rules meets Aussie go-gettum!!

    As you also point out -- yeah, killing fannish activities is a really great way to encourage fan loyalty. NOT!!

    There's talk of Tommy Lasorda as the next baseball commissioner -- and he's always said that baseball is about the *fans*. If he gets the seat, I'd like to see him put his money where his mouth is, and *encourage* fan websites. Don't hold your breath.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    1. Re:Somewhat true even to a baseball fan :( by Buck2 · · Score: 1

      Minimum salary was raised from $200k to $300k due to the recent negotiations.

      Disgusting, eh?

      --

      As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
    2. Re:Somewhat true even to a baseball fan :( by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Those were negotiations? I thought it was a hostage situation!!

      Disgusting indeed. Tho I don't begrudge the everyday players a nice six-figure wage -- they do earn it. It's the multimillion dollar over-the-top contracts that have skewed things all out of proportion.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    3. Re:Somewhat true even to a baseball fan :( by Buck2 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't mind a six figure wage if it was around $100k, not $300k. I can't imagine how they could be considered "earning" $300k unless one does raw profit calculations, which, I'm sure have been done plenty of times.

      When I was younger I thought it was cool that even the "average" ballplayers made so much ... now that I'm in grad school and my wife is the breadwinner (on a schoolteacher's salary), everything seems a bit different.

      Unfortunately, I'm all for the free market and capitalism so there's not much for me to say, I guess. :)

      --

      As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
    4. Re:Somewhat true even to a baseball fan :( by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Ha, I wouldn't mind earning a 6-figure wage of ANY description :) But yeah, being out there making your own way does change your perspective. (I say from the ripe old viewpoint of 47 years :)

      Time was when average ballplayers weren't even paid a living wage -- most needed to hold down regular jobs in the off season just to scrape by. Used to be the owners screwed the players up, down, and sideways; now the spikes are on the other foot.

      The free market and capitalism have their share of problems and drawbacks, but they do beat the alternatives. As someone once put it, "the worst system in the world -- except for all the others!"

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    5. Re:Somewhat true even to a baseball fan :( by wilhelm · · Score: 1

      Oh jeez. Last I heard (a couple years ago, so it may have changed), the NBA minimum salary was like $50K, and those guys work a hell of a lot harder than the baseballers. And apparently, there are a whole lotta players who make that salary. They do have a "veteran" minimum of like a mil or something, but I'm not too sure what constitutes a veteran.

      Salary caps (and sane ones, at that) are the answer.

    6. Re:Somewhat true even to a baseball fan :( by Buck2 · · Score: 1

      I think a minimum salary of $50k to play a professional sport is more than reasonable.

      As cliche as it is, you've got to remember that they are playing a game. Many other people have jobs wherein failure to perform properly has the dangerous consequence of death to themselves or others, and they get paid comparably, or sometimes less (firemen).

      Economics is wierd sometimes.

      --

      As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
    7. Re:Somewhat true even to a baseball fan :( by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2

      There's talk of Tommy Lasorda as the next baseball commissioner -- and he's always said that baseball is about the *fans*.

      I hate the Dodgers (my sister bled blue, and I'm an Angels fan -- used to disappointment), but Tommy would probably be the best commish that there ever could be.

      Actually, and this just occurred to me while I was writing this... when he gets out of office in either 2004 or 2008, Bush would probably be an excellent commissioner.

      DISCLAIMER: I am professing no opinion one way or another about W's politics.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    8. Re:Somewhat true even to a baseball fan :( by Reziac · · Score: 2

      I can root for the Dodgers if the alternative is the Hated Giants, but I too am really an Angels fan (actually, I started as a fan of Al and Kemmer, but they made me into an Angels follower with their *marvelous* broadcasts.) So I cheer the Angels, and whoever is playing the Unspeakable Athletics. :)

      Maybe that's where I learned to appreciate the game for itself and not for the Pennants -- can't appreciate what you don't got :/

      When they cut open Lasorda, they'll find he's made of horsehide and twine... yeah, I think he would really work to do what's best for baseball, but he's not entirely above political games (he used to run with Sinatra's crowd, and you know who they are, right?)

      As to Bush, that's a helluva good thought, and I believe you're right, he'd be excellent. Someone ought to suggest it to TPTB. Aside from knowledge of and love of the game, he's got the ability to get along with everyone, which a position like that needs.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  57. don't forget Korea by intermodal · · Score: 1

    Let's not neglect Korea, who is also becoming more prominient in the MLB as time goes on,

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  58. It's a game of *aniticpation*, not of action! by Reziac · · Score: 2

    Baseball is NOT a game of action. It's a game of *anticipation*. There's a huge chess game going on in the background ALL the time, between rival players and rival managers. Baseball is really about microplays, not the macroplays (frex, home runs) that are visible to the untrained eye. The microplay can be something like the player on first taking half a step toward second, thus throwing the pitcher's rhythm off so maybe he'll hang a curveball, and "You hang 'em, we bang 'em." Or conversely maybe the pitcher holds the ball half a second longer, to freeze the runner who was just about to take off for second, and oops, now he's pick-off bait. This sort of thing goes on *constantly* throughout every game, but you have to learn to see it. Even something as small as someone shifting their weight from one foot to the other can be a significant microplay.

    It's like the difference between a programmer and a user. Does the user see or appreciate all the beautiful or ugly code that's under the hood? Nope, the user just sees the macro-effect on his screen. But another coder will see and appreciate what's going on behind the CRT. Baseball fans are the programmers of the sporting world. :)

    When a game goes slowly it's usually due to a pitcher who dilly-dallies between pitches, which has the bad side effect that his fielders behind him get stale and lose concentration (and while occasionally it's to screw with the batter's concentration, just as often it means the pitcher isn't sure of his next pitch and is procrastinating). The steadier pitchers usually get ball, get sign, throw pitch, and don't step off the mound unless it's to hold a runner on base (who might otherwise take off).

    "Throw strikes. Home plate don't move." -- Satchel Paige

    Tho that brings up another point. Pitching is NOT just about throwing the ball so hard that the batter can't catch up with it. It's much more about fooling the batter into swinging at a bad pitch, ie. a pitch that he can't do anything useful with, so he makes an out. It's a lot more efficient to get your 27 outs with 27 ground balls or pop-ups than it is to throw 27 strikeouts.

    Conversely hitting isn't just about getting the ball past everyone. It's about putting the ball where no fielder can do anything *useful* with it. Watch the entire infield fall on their noses when some clever batter unexpectedly dribbles a piddly little bunt that barely makes it out of the batter's box. :)

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    1. Re:It's a game of *aniticpation*, not of action! by zerocool^ · · Score: 2

      I just wanted to say I appreciate your reasoned and articulate response, instead of flaming me. It was a pleasant read, and I really respect you for it.

      I suppose I'll just have to draw a line and say that I don't understand baseball the way you (and many others) do. I'm not sure I'm willing to learn, but until recently I didn't like football - then I went to college... So mabey there's hope.

      I'd imagine it was easier to pick it up earlier in the game, before it was so high priced, for tickets, for player's salaries, before there were sponsers for everything. Now, any time we can get a commercial, we do, and there isn't a surface in the stadium without a logo on it.

      In the same vein, let me make a couple of comments. One: This does carry over to other sports, I know that. I can't stand watching football on ABC. They take FOREVER, TV timeouts last an age. And they're MUCH worse when you're at the game - a la Virginia Tech v. LSU on Sunday. I was at the game (I'm a Hokie), and I was in a wool uniform (I'm also in the marching band), an thus, I didn't appreciate the length of the game (while I did appreciate it's content).

      Another point: I have ZERO problem with paying athletes millions of dollars. It works on a simple supply and demand scale, with the addition of skill levels. Why do you get paid $5.65 at burger king? Because, while there is a huge demand, there is a much larger supply, there are millions of people willing to do your job, and it takes no skill. Why do you get paid $60,000 to be a tech consultant? Because there is a high demand - not very, but it's higher than the supply, and that's because the skill level limits the supply.

      Now, everyone sees where this is going - Why does Michael Vick get paid so much? Because the demand for his services is astronomical, and his skill level is so hard to find that the supply is almost zero. There are 150 million people in this country capable of working at Burger King, there are probably 1 million people capable of working tech sector jobs competently, but there are probably only 10 or so people in the world capable of both being a supurb scramble quarterback in the NFL *and* bringing the level of excitement that Vick brings with him wherever he is.

      My problem with baseball players wanting more money is that I think they percieve their demand to be much higher than it really is. If Michael Vick wanted more money, he could probably get it. Why? Because people would demand that he is worth WHATEVER he wants to keep him on this team. If Casey Fossum really wants more money, who gives a shit. A lot less people.

      Now, I also don't think that baseball players should get the standard $15/hr for their efforts. I think that there are probably players who are worth $500,000 or so per year, based on what they do for a team, and what they do monitarily for a franchise. There are a couple of players that deserve a few million a year for their presence - Bonds, McGuire, Martinez, whoever... These people are worth money because they bring money and they bring buzz, as well as good games.

      They're just not worth $15 million, etc.

      Thanks for reading this, if you got this far. I always read replies.

      ~Will

      --
      sig?
    2. Re:It's a game of *aniticpation*, not of action! by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Flames are neither useful nor educational, and I "know" you from your other posts, so I thought it would be worth expounding a bit. :)

      Until I had an Epiphany (see some other post where I talk about that), I'd actively disliked baseball, and outright hated football. The whole problem was that all I could see was the action, but I had no understanding of the game. So I do know where you're at! And every sport isn't for everyone's taste anyway.

      Football TV timeouts (for commercials) are all set up by contract with the TV network. X-many minutes per TV timeout, x-many TV timeouts per quarter, x-many total TV timeouts per game. Ever notice that sometimes during overtime, there are no TV timeouts? that's because all the contracted TV timeouts have already been done, so they don't have to do any more of 'em. I agree they're highly annoying, and they have to disrupt the players as much as they do the fans. Not to mention the various peripheral personnel like marching bands, roasting or freezing on the sidelines for that much longer without any compensation for it.

      As to salaries and perceived worth, I think you've nailed it on the nose. Also, supply and demand is all very well, but the bloated salaries some pro athletes currently command reminds me of the dot-bombs before the bubble burst. Even with salary caps and revenue sharing, at some point the available revenue simply won't be able to support those ever-rising toplevel salaries, and something has to give. Greed on this scale sets itself up for collapse. And eventually the perception of worth is going to come down to reality -- with considerable force. Baseball is quite capable of doing this, if finances dictate it:

      Remember the ML umpires' strike? They only wanted a reasonable salary increase, commeasurate with inflation and to some degree reflective of the base salary for players. MLB decided they weren't worth it (a very bad decision IMO, and really annoying since I am a big fan of good umpiring!), locked out the striking umpires, and permanently promoted the minor league substitutes. It wouldn't surprise me if at some point, they said enough is enough and did the same with players, thus ditching ALL the 8-figure-and-up contracts in one swell foop. Minor leaguers' abilities don't look half-bad if you aren't comparing them with experienced ML players.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  59. Foot, gun, aim - shoot! And it's outta here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Personally, I was hoping the overpaid jerks would strike. After they took their money and went home before the All "Star" game was over, I haven't paid any attention to the "sport." MLB's attitude seems to be that the fans are stupid enough to take whatever they dish out. The fact that the ballparks are still filled and televised games are getting ratings proves they're right. Jumping on fan websites just shows once again that they're only in it for the money, and the fans can go screw themselves as long as they'll stay stupid enough to shell out the bucks.

  60. information is fine... not logos, etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    there's lots of baseball sites that MLB encourages, among them are baseball-almanac.com and the various sabermetrics sites (like http://www.baseball1.com/c-sabr.html )...

    these sites *talk* about baseball, and provide lots of insight, they just don't attempt to portray themselves as official sites, and they produce their own artwork and design. A lot of the pages that get 'foxed' are full of graphics, photos, and information (including trademarks within urls) that the sites' producers simply don't have the rights to re-transmit. The graphic designer that produced last year's world series logo deserves payment for it's use, just as Derek Jeter deserves the right to control who uses his image, or, moreso, perhaps, those who've PAID Derek Jeter for the exclusive right to his image deserve to retain those exclusive rights.

    Look at the baseballhalloffame.org site (which, while having a good relationship with the MLB, has no official tie to any current or former league). You'll not see any logos, images, etc. that they don't own the rights to, even though they're obviously "serving the fans", and have a great relationship with professional and amateur baseball at all levels.

    There's nothing wrong with "posting information, pure and simple". The sites that do that aren't the ones receiving letters from the MLB.

  61. correction by forgotmypassword · · Score: 1

    Many people in India speak English, it was a colony. It is easily one of the two most common languages there. In the future it may become the most common language for various reasons. There are hundreds to thousands of languages in India, but only two really common languages - hindi and English. But hindi is only spoken in India, so many people are putting more emphasis in learning English as it is a universal language.

  62. Re:dirtbag by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · · Score: 2
    Wrong. The term is used in many (if not most) non-english speaking countries.

    Whether it sounds the same or if it's of the form , no, it isn't the same term. It's in another language, and for the purpose of figuring out whether the English word for you-know-what is football, it's not relevant.

  63. MLB and the RIAA could be blood relatives! by espionage_7 · · Score: 1
    I can not believe this, what a bunch of tight-wads. In my opinion baseball has long since been dead in MLB since the early 90's strike. Here are a bunch of guys that are fighting because they don't make enough money.... They make millions, WTF they must be really stupid. In my opinion if they want more money fine, but get a real job. These SOB's don't realize how lucky they have it, getting paid millions for playing the game they love. If they are having "Problems with not getting paid enough," get a real job like the rest of us Americans who work their a.s.s'es off to make a living. With that said to hell with baseball, its for the birds.

    Also just a little bit of small print from the MLB website...

    "The following are trademarks or service marks of Major League Baseball entities and may be used only with permission of Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. or the relevant Major League Baseball entity: Major League, Major League Baseball, MLB, the silhouetted batter logo, World Series, National League, American League, Division Series, League Championship Series, All-Star Game, and the names, nicknames, logos, uniform designs, color combinations, and slogans designating the Major League Baseball clubs and entities, and their respective mascots, events and exhibitions.

    -- Espionage_07 or God_Father_Ye

  64. An entertainment industry sector needs to die by alizard · · Score: 2
    From what I'm seeing, the unnecessary death of an established entertainment industry sector due to obvious short-sighted stupidity and greed, i.e. the new entertainment rule seems to be - when profits drop, attack the hard-core fans. . . will be necessary before this stops.

    This puts MLB neck and neck with the RIAA labels. Perhaps some enterprising slashdotter ought to set up death watch pools for each of these markets... set up an acceptable definition for industry death (MLB declaring bankruptcy? 3 of the 5 RIAA major labels closing?) either for fun or profit... so we can start entering our guesses as to when these industry segments will crash and burn.

  65. Re:dirtbag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    In spanish they actually call it futbol, which is as close as they can actually come to saying football with their spanish accents.
    In Chinese, they say zuqiu, zu meaning foot and qiu meaning sport.

  66. section39.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if MLB tries to take away the site of my beloved NY Yankees Bleacher Creatures, they are becoming beyond fuct up.

    the Creatures have gone to lengths making sure they don't have anything copyrighted by MLB on their site. the only thing remotely conflicting are pictures of the creatures at the games.

  67. Favorite Pastime? by Alethes · · Score: 1

    Anybody with a website dedicated to America's favorite pastime...

    There goes the last profitable sector of the web...pr0n.

  68. well... by AnimeFreak · · Score: 1

    I guess the two fans who run websites on the internet dedicated to MLB have to close up shop.

    It's not like anyone visited those sites anyways.

  69. Everyone sing along... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take me out to the ball game.

    Take me out with the young upwardly-mobile demographic.

    Buy me some peanuts and trademarked carmel-coated popcorn.

    I don't care if the players smoke crack.

    Let me root, root, root for the first-round draft picks.

    If they don't win, they don't care...

    For it's pay, pay, pay or they strike

    and there's no ball game.

  70. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    astrosdaily.com is completely non-profit.

    We were "hassled" by MLB Properties for two things:
    -- displaying historical logos in our historical section. All of the logos except one are no longer used by the team
    -- displaying player photos in which a logo is visible on his uniform.

    The letter was sent by MLB Properties. When the Astros found out about it, they made it clear that they did not want the site to shut down.

    Funny, once a little common sense was used then a compromised was found that allowed the site to stay up with player photos.

    Ray Kerby
    www.AstrosDaily.com

  71. quit making up "facts" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    only 1 of the 6 sites I'm aware of was selling merchandise. 2 others had ads.

    Never let facts get in the way of a good argument, I guess.

    Ray Kerby
    www.AstrosDaily.com

  72. Tell them what you feel by phiz187 · · Score: 1

    Here is a great list of contact information for Major League Baseball: http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/official_info/ml b_official_info.jsp

    --
    Pretend I said something meaningful or insightful here.
  73. Somewhat Off Topic by ronfar · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    The national sport of Thailand is somewhat nodded to in the symbol of the Thai Linux Working Group:

    Thai Linux Penguin

    --
    All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
  74. reselling != bootlegging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They weren't bootlegging merchandise, they were reselling it. There's nothing wrong with buying an item and reselling it. It's not like they're /printing/ the shit. MLB gets the money somehow. MLBshould applaud this, it just gets more people selling their wares, it's called an affiliate program: getting more people to use and sell your product.

  75. you are a dumbfuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what does a newspaper do? Imagine if they had to black out the logo on every jersey in every photo.

    They reproduce IP and logos, and guess what, smart guy, they sell advertising too!

  76. More than one citation by FreeUser · · Score: 2

    Wrong, apparently....

    From snopes urban legend page linked on other comment:

    Origins: For nearly a century now, baseball's annual championship, the World Series, has been an essential American ritual...


    Snopes is a great resource for debunking Urban Myth's and Legends, but I am curious if there are additional citations available. Why?

    Because checks and balances are IMHO very important, and it is entirely possible for one source to be incorrect about this or that fact. Add to that the (possible) temptation to take a particular stance on one or another political issue (like the myth that the United States is the only country to misuse the adjective "world" ... I personally saw the term misused in Europe more than once when I lived there).

    While I have no reason to believe Snopes is wrong about this (or any of their other points, for that matter) I'd feel more comfortable with a second, corroborating citation.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  77. hehehe....... I never seem to win any fights by Ride-My-Rocket · · Score: 2

    I thought I was gonna get my ass kicked at a Sox-Yankees game a few months ago. Sox ended up waxing the Yankees by the 8th, and everybody started leaving. This after they were so vocal about how they sucked........ so I stood up and started yelling: "Why are you all leaving? It's not over yet, is it? The Yankees really are the best players in baseball, right?". Got some very unpleasant looks from people....... fortunately, I had already spent upwards of $50 on beer, so I didn't mind at the time.