Originally Posted by TomBarndtsTwin:
no one is arguing that the NFL isn't more popular than MLB, it obviously is. I just think, if they were given a level playing field, baseball would win out over football in Kansas City. Especially when you consider all the history with baseball here.
But that will never happen and MLB will probably never be more popular than the NFL again, so it is what it is.
Originally Posted by Chiefspants:
I think it's tough to argue whether a town is a "football" or "baseball" town in an era where football is vastly more popular. There are exceptions (STL, of course). But I think MLB's strike was a terrible turning point for the sport, and it's never really been the same since (even in Kansas City - which was helped by the fact that the Royals were a black hole immediately after). If baseball has another strike (there are concerning signs), it may kill the sport or put it below MLS if it extends or cancels an entire season.
Here’s a question.
Is the NBA more popular than MLB now? It feels like it is. I think NBA stars are bigger stars than MLB stars. Plus NBA gets more National conversation than MLB.
MLB feels very regionalized anymore unless it’s the Yankees or Red Sox. [Reply]
Originally Posted by gblowfish:
I'm going to the game tonight with around 30 of my friends. Watch the outfield ribbon boards between the end of 2nd and top of 3rd inning!
You have 30 friends? I don't even want 5 friends. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Deberg_1990:
Here’s a question.
Is the NBA more popular than MLB now? It feels like it is. I think NBA stars are bigger stars than MLB stars. Plus NBA gets more National conversation than MLB.
MLB feels very regionalized anymore unless it’s the Yankees or Red Sox.
NBA is player driven by popularity, MLB is team driven by popularity. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
I just can't imagine Gordon ever making that list.
Brett and Dawson are safe until the end of time. Mahomes can/will knock Watson off that list at some point if he wins as much as a single SB. If Gordon displaces anybody there is has to be DT and I'm just not seein' it.
Frankly, Lamar Hunt belongs over Watson right this very minute (and there's an argument for displacing Thomas with Watson). So at some point you're gonna end up with 3 Chiefs up there with Brett, Dawson, Mahomes and Hunt.
I sat at a bar on the plaza next to Tom Watson. Didn't even know who he was til he got up and left and the bartender told me LOL [Reply]
Originally Posted by TomBarndtsTwin:
It was around 800,000 I believe.
Look, no one is arguing that the NFL isn't more popular than MLB, it obviously is. I just think, if they were given a level playing field, baseball would win out over football in Kansas City. Especially when you consider all the history with baseball here.
But that will never happen and MLB will probably never be more popular than the NFL again, so it is what it is.
I always think this argument is really hard to figure out. It's just a good sports town overall.
For as much as people bag on attendance, the Royals have been flat terrible for the last 13 months and yet Kansas City still has among the best TV ratings in baseball. That's pretty impressive for what may be two straight 100 loss teams. There are a lot of good teams who would love to have the TV ratings the Royals do, especially considering how important TV money is now.
Meanwhile, the Chiefs haven't won jack squat in 4 decades and have lost playoff games in about a dozen of the most excruciating ways ever, and fans still come out. [Reply]
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
According to roster resource, Starling has no options, which means he would have to pass through waivers again to be retained if they call him up and it doesn’t work.
All the more reason to keep him down longer.
Re: what he brings to the table, you’re talking about a 60-65 glove (have repeatedly been told he is a better version of Lorenzo Cain defensively) and someone who has the speed and baserunning ability to nab 20+ bags. He adds some value with his legs.
I haven’t seen him enough to break down swing/approach changes, and I don’t think any scouts have been published on that. His problem has always been with breaking balls, and it wasn’t just trying to do too much with them. It was inability to recognize, lay-off, or handle them.
If he’s changed swing plane or setup or something to better handle them, some of the XB pop could return as he becomes more comfortable there.
Or, as DJ points out, it could just be a BABIP-driven mirage that will stabilize and regress to norm.
All reasons to give it more time.
That was my understanding that he ran out of options last year. I can't imagine we'd see him before the second half of the season. You bring Starling up, and there's no going back. [Reply]
Originally Posted by tk13:
I always think this argument is really hard to figure out. It's just a good sports town overall.
For as much as people bag on attendance, the Royals have been flat terrible for the last 13 months and yet Kansas City still has among the best TV ratings in baseball. That's pretty impressive for what may be two straight 100 loss teams. There are a lot of good teams who would love to have the TV ratings the Royals do, especially considering how important TV money is now.
Meanwhile, the Chiefs haven't won jack squat in 4 decades and have lost playoff games in about a dozen of the most excruciating ways ever, and fans still come out.
It remains strange to me that a team with a park that nice can't draw better. Kaufman is a beautiful place to catch a game. I've been to about a dozen MLB parks and apart from SF and maybe Seattle, KC is my favorite venue.
It has to have something to do with its location and the fact that growth went north, south and into the Kansas Side rather than kicking out a little further east towards the sports complex. But man, it's not THAT hard a drive out there and it sure is nicer to do that than try to find somewhere to park downtown. Even metrolinks and stuff suck something awful in most cases.
Going to the ballpark is just something that seems to have ever woven itself into the fabric of Kansas City. Again - I'll admit to my biases given that I wasn't alive in the 70s or remember their best years in the early/mid 80 (my memory of the Royals comes online around the beginning of the Bo Jackson era; 87 ish), but I just never recall it being the 'in thing' to go to the stadium to catch a ballgame.
And that's a shame because it's a hell of a ballpark. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
It remains strange to me that a team with a park that nice can't draw better. Kaufman is a beautiful place to catch a game. I've been to about a dozen MLB parks and apart from SF and maybe Seattle, KC is my favorite venue.
It has to have something to do with its location and the fact that growth went north, south and into the Kansas Side rather than kicking out a little further east towards the sports complex. But man, it's not THAT hard a drive out there and it sure is nicer to do that than try to find somewhere to park downtown. Even metrolinks and stuff suck something awful in most cases.
Going to the ballpark is just something that seems to have ever woven itself into the fabric of Kansas City. Again - I'll admit to my biases given that I wasn't alive in the 70s or remember their best years in the early/mid 80 (my memory of the Royals comes online around the beginning of the Bo Jackson era; 87 ish), but I just never recall it being the 'in thing' to go to the stadium to catch a ballgame.
And that's a shame because it's a hell of a ballpark.
It was the “in” thing to do during the Brett Era. [Reply]
