November 2nd, 2010
07:27 PM ET

Is Giants' World Series win bad for baseball?

Cody Ross celebrates after scoring on a three-run hit by Giants teammate Edgar Renteria in Game 5 (Getty Images).
Cody Ross celebrates after scoring on a three-run hit by Giants teammate Edgar Renteria in Game 5 (Getty Images).

The Fall Classic came to an end Monday night, with the San Francisco Giants defeating the Texas Rangers in five games to claim their first World Series title since 1954. The Giants not only ended a 56-year wait for baseball’s ultimate prize, but will notably bring the trophy to San Francisco for the very first time, having been based in New York for each of their previous five triumphs.

Although coming short at the final hurdle, the Texas Rangers also had a significant first this postseason as they reached their maiden World Series in team history. That’s a massive achievement for a franchise that was founded in 1961 but had never won a playoff series prior to this season. The Rangers got that monkey off their backs by ousting AL East duo Tampa Bay Rays and New York Yankees on the way to the finals.

In spite of the Cinderella stories put on display by both the Giants and Rangers, many baseball pundits will argue that in order to be most successful, the sport needs the big-market teams to shine come playoff time. For example, the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox pull in major media attention whenever they play and assure TV networks of good viewership.

The latter point can’t be disputed, since the viewership rating for Monday’s Game 5 was down 17 percent from Game 5 of last year’s Yankees-Philadelphia Phillies series. Nonetheless, I will argue against the claim that the Yankees are a necessary evil for the good of the game.

Yes, they have won a Major League-best 27 World Series titles (the St. Louis Cardinals are a distant second with 10). Yes, they have reached the World Series a record 40 times. Yes, they are probably the biggest sporting franchise in the United States, much like soccer club Manchester United in the English Premier League. But no, their dominance is not necessarily good for the game.

If all of Major League Baseball teams were on an even playing field with the Yankees, then perhaps their dominance would be most impressive and fascinating.

But the truth of the matter is that the Yankees win because they spend big. Some might venture to call it an unfair advantage. To put it in perspective, the Yankees’ 2010 payroll of $206 million is more than the combined salaries of four MLB teams – the Oakland Athletics, Arizona Diamondbacks, San Diego Padres and Pittsburgh Pirates.

You want more perspective? How about the fact that the combined 2010 salary of Yankees players Alex Rodriguez and CC Sabathia is more than the ENTIRE team salary of the Texas Rangers! Oh yeah, the same Rangers that ousted the Yankees from the postseason on the way to the World Series.

Yes, football fans might point out that Manchester United, Chelsea and Manchester City spend way more money than teams like Wolverhampton and Wigan. Or the fact that Real Madrid’s spending over the last couple of seasons can be enough to buy a small country.

In this case it is important to remember that in European football there are hundreds of teams that have a giant pool of talent to choose from. Real can buy Cristiano Ronaldo and Kaka, but can only field 11 players at a time, while Barcelona will have Lionel Messi and Manchester United will have Wayne Rooney. Inevitably there will always be around 10 teams throughout Europe that can hope to win the 32-strong Champions League each year.

Major League Baseball is different in the way that the gap from the Yankees to the 10th team in salary is astronomical. Yes, the Giants are ninth in salary and just won the World Series, but what are the chances they will make another run next year? Highly unlikely, while it’s very likely the Yankees will be back again and looking for title 28.

It’s no coincidence that the Yankees and Red Sox, the top two teams in terms of payroll, have won three of the last seven World Series titles. Most of the national media will tell you that those finals match-ups were precisely the ones that drew the most attention and will be remembered the longest. The media will also remind you of the glory years in the late 1990s when the Yankees won four of five World Series titles.

What they might not mention is the fact that this past decade has produced numerous unlikely champions from different parts of the country.

The Arizona Diamondbacks, a team formed in 1998, won the World Series in 2001. The following year, Anaheim Angels, founded in 1961, won their first and only title. The Boston Red Sox ended an 86-year title drought by triumphing in 2004. The Chicago White Sox followed suit in 2005, by claiming their first title since 1917. You can now add the Giants to the list of unlikely winners. It is important to note that the Red Sox aided their cause by having the second-best team salary in 2004, while the other aforementioned teams were out of the top three the year they won.

Come next year, a big part of the national media will hope the Yankees bounce back, arguing that it will be good for the game. They will say the playoffs are not the same without the Bronx Bombers. They will say the World Series are not the same without the pinstripes. The fact is that the Yankees’ title in 2009 was their only one this decade, and baseball has been just fine.

The Giants winning the World Series was a breath of fresh air. Sadly, there are those who contest it was bad for baseball. Do I want to see New York in the Fall Classic next year? No Yank you.

Posted by ,
Filed under:  Baseball
soundoff (66 Responses)
  1. c

    The BEST series in a long long time ! Absolutely great for baseball and any fan who really is a fan.

    November 2, 2010 at 8:02 pm | Reply
  2. Ryan

    Another Yankee hater.....move on, Sam, you won't be able to stop us.

    November 2, 2010 at 8:18 pm | Reply
  3. Phil

    Thank you to the author for combating the tired line about the Yankees. ANY team who spends that much money would be successful. The question should not be "How do we get the Yankees in the playoffs?," but rather "How do we make baseball more compelling for *more* people."

    November 2, 2010 at 9:04 pm | Reply
  4. Danny

    Great series for many reason.

    Terribly argued article for just as many reasons.

    November 2, 2010 at 9:05 pm | Reply
  5. Dr

    I am excited that the Giants won. Proves that the majority of big name players are all talk and no game..these guys play well together, like they've been playing since they were kids...that's what happens when players let their ego go and just play baseball.

    November 2, 2010 at 9:13 pm | Reply
  6. Bob

    Rangers should have won, it would have been for the good of the game, after all they went bankrupt earlier this season.

    November 2, 2010 at 9:17 pm | Reply
  7. SS

    I think that the title should read, Is Giants' World Series win bad for the media. The media are the ones who are complaining. All they care about is their revenue, not baseball itself.

    November 2, 2010 at 9:41 pm | Reply
  8. Brian

    A true lover of any sport will always like to see the underdog win and not just the big teams. If two teams dominate then it becomes boring and thats the same with any sport.....the english premier league is dull in my opinion as the same sides are always the top teams

    November 2, 2010 at 9:50 pm | Reply
  9. Domo

    This article is biased and unfair to a team that has a big history and a legacy of champions. Prime journalism doesn't seek to downplay achievements and an entire franchise just because they spend a lot of money. This article became irrelevant after becoming case-specific, and, once again, biased.

    November 2, 2010 at 9:56 pm | Reply
  10. Brandon

    If the Indians ever win the World Series in my lifetime – and as a 20-something Clevelander, I doubt that – I don't want the headline the next day to read 'Is Indians' World Series bad for baseball?' Let them have their day! Congrats Giants.

    November 2, 2010 at 10:01 pm | Reply
  11. Glenda Gryba

    With the Giants winning the World Series – It 's a dream come true – It's just what the Bay area needed after the recession. Alot of happy! I love the San Francisco Giants!! :O) Glenda Go Giants!

    November 2, 2010 at 10:02 pm | Reply
  12. Jen

    Baseball did baseball a huge disservice when they broke "real" records using performing enhancing drugs. I watched the game last night as a former San Franciscan, every time I saw someone bat I wondered who was a cheater.

    November 2, 2010 at 10:05 pm | Reply
  13. rafael arrate

    I don´t want either to have Real Madrid winning any of the titles they are involved at. They have 25% of the TV money each year Barcelona has another 25%) while 5th team has around 5%. They not only have the best team, but destroy the others by hiring other team top players that will be ruined most of the times in Real.

    November 2, 2010 at 10:06 pm | Reply
  14. Aaron

    I'm a Yankee fan, I shared the joy last night when the Brian Wilson threw that final strike, but the joy wasn't exactly what I thought it was going to be. From a pure logistical standpoint, the Giants winning was awful for baseball. San Fran is small market and in top of that no east coast team was in the world series, which alientes a huge part of the television markets. My bigger problem with it I realized was that...how big was this win? It proved that in the year of pitcher greating pitching stopped a great offense, but even that didn't do much for me. I would of been much happier if Josh Hamilton and Vlad and Michael Young had won after everything both had been thru and accomplished over the years, but that wasn't it either. Then it hit me, David beat a smaller David. There was no bad guy, no juggernaut, no team to root against really unless they beat your team to get to the series. It was just a pure battle of pitching vs offense, which as a life long baseball I thought I would love...but no. I'm not sure what this says about the state of baseball, but thats just how it left me feeling.

    November 2, 2010 at 10:09 pm | Reply
  15. German

    I am totally agree. All sports need "fresh air"

    November 2, 2010 at 10:30 pm | Reply
  16. Cathy044

    I am a met fan and i watched every game in the playoffs...It was nice to watch the teams that did not have BIG Market aka Big Salaries....The only experts complaining are the greedy agents......this world series was a fun and family orintated games.....finally a world series without having to hear about men who are drugging/steriods or drinking , beating there spouses/girlfriends....or men who think they are to big for the game......
    great series and congrats to the Giants

    November 2, 2010 at 10:39 pm | Reply
  17. Wayne

    This was one of the best series in a long time! For a true fan of the game, the World Series does not require the presence of the Yankees or Red Sox.

    November 2, 2010 at 11:07 pm | Reply
  18. Joltin'Joe

    The Yankees are the most successful sports franchise in the United States. They will continue to go to the World Series ,and win no matter how much you complain about their team salary (even though they have only won 2 times in the past 10 years). When they dominated in the 1990's, their payroll was competitive with all the other teams. It wasn't always in first, and if i was, it was barely. Haters gonna hate.

    November 2, 2010 at 11:12 pm | Reply
  19. Steven Luce

    For the record, the Pirates payroll represents a much smaller percentage of revenue than does the Yankees payroll. In fact, the Pirates have one of the smallest percentages in the league, a fact that Steinbrenner used to point out at every opportunity. I don't have a problem with generating a level playing field, but when one team generates a huge percentage of the league's revenue, and another teams refuses to squeeze out a nickel for players, that sounds to me like one owner being asked to stuff the bank accounts of another owner. And frankly, dude, that just isn't right. Period.

    November 2, 2010 at 11:15 pm | Reply
  20. brian

    west coast = best coast.

    November 2, 2010 at 11:18 pm | Reply
  21. Battleneter

    Any Chance Americans could rename "The world series" something else as the US is only country that plays, sounds ridiculous and drives me nuts lol. Maybe National series is more accurate.

    November 2, 2010 at 11:24 pm | Reply
  22. Robber Baron

    If we only look at market size, then the Mets are just as valid as Yankees (same metro market). No, it's more. People watch the Yankees out of market, because they know of them - courtesy of legend (Sultan of Swat, etc) and ESPN. And of course, lots of folks love to cheer AGAINST the Yanks. they count too! Texas is a huge market, looked at in one way, but they don't capture the nation. Imagine if the Cubbies made the Series. Highest rating ever, probably.

    November 2, 2010 at 11:48 pm | Reply
  23. Jerry

    I think this was great for baseball. It was so nice seeing two teams who normally don't make it to the World Series especially since I am a fan of one of those teams, the San Francisco Giants. The fact that they won made it all better plus the fact that they ended their title drought. Who really wants to keep seeing the Yankees or Phillies in the World Series anyways?

    November 2, 2010 at 11:59 pm | Reply
  24. Javier

    This series was horrible in my mind! Comment and yell at me if you wish, but everyone hates all of the big market teams. There would have been a much more interesting series if the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, or Dodgers made it to the Fall Classic because of the marquee hitters and great, popular pitching matchups night after night. There would be great drama in series like these, where the teams are evenly matched and could bring it to 7 games. This series only went 5 and was the least rated ws in a while! These small market teams are actually way overhyped!

    November 3, 2010 at 12:23 am | Reply
  25. John

    This gave the world a chance to see the absolute best. What's the problem? You can play ball or make up reasons why this is bad. We all know content is content but if you keep putting it down how can you expect to attract the viewers you crave??

    November 3, 2010 at 12:57 am | Reply
  26. James

    For the passion and emotion that sport bring to our lives there are no better or worse teams to have in any one competition. Mix in money and you have a whole different answer. As a lifelong baseball fan living overseas in a mainly cricket and rugby playing nation has made me realise what a fantastic game baseball is. What other sport can you attend for 6 games a week when your team is at home, follow the box scores, Sports Center or other up-dates every day for months giving us something beyond the truely important things in life to be passionate about? Not taking anything away from the game but certainly not for baseball's alternative, cricket, where if you're lucky you get a couple international one dayers or a test per YEAR in your home city. Come on Indians and Cubs baseball is pulling for you to break your droughts as well!

    November 3, 2010 at 1:32 am | Reply
  27. James

    A bigger problem is the revolving door created by free agency. In the 1970's the Cincinnati Reds and Oakland A's were extremely popular franchises – they kept great players and these players were nationally known. Today these players would be signed by the Yankees or Dodgers after their first good season. The Giants won't have the same team next year, 2 years from now there might be 4 or 5 starters left if they're lucky.

    November 3, 2010 at 1:32 am | Reply
  28. RON SF

    What does another team other than the New York Yankees or any other East Coast necessitate winning the World Series bad for baseball? Yankees and other big market media city have a black hole to spend on free agency, thus they're marketing capacity extends beyond the borders. Thus the questions is put by the pundits and media, "Small market team series bad for baseball?" MLB needs to do a better job at promoting itself. Goes to show what heart, determination, grit, managerial skill, drafting and scouting can produce – WORLD SERIES TITLE!!!!!

    November 3, 2010 at 1:48 am | Reply
  29. alex

    I think what is bad for baseball is that the world series hasn't gone to a game 7 in a while. Last year and this year you knew who was going to win barring a miracle. I find the Division championship series more impressive and entertaining. They seem to go to the game 6 or 7. What baseball needs is for the world series to come down to those game 7 were it is do or die. After a team builds a 3 game lead it is less exciting b/c you know even if the lead team loses they have another to games.

    November 3, 2010 at 2:09 am | Reply
  30. jc

    @Steven Luce – that's insightful

    November 3, 2010 at 2:12 am | Reply
  31. Lee

    I have enjoyed tha US fall classic for last seasons, but this year match was so dull and not interesting because of no big stars and reversed games. I thoght Taxas seemed not to do their best and was conteded with League champion.

    November 3, 2010 at 2:37 am | Reply
  32. Ernie

    The east coast is old and tired and they whine too much. Get over it! Time for a change. I'm bored watching the Yankees or Sox play. The underdog teams are where the true excitement is because you get the unexpected. Change is good; greed is not! Go Giants!

    November 3, 2010 at 3:07 am | Reply
  33. Ben

    Why create an eye poping headlines?
    It's a good win for the Giant, period.

    November 3, 2010 at 3:18 am | Reply
  34. Dylan

    Dollars don't swing bats, throw breaking balls, or steal bases – players do. The players still have to execute and paying them higher salaries doesn't make them better athletes it makes them better paid. Also, at any given moment, all 9 players on the diamond in pinstripes can be players that were either originally drafted or originally signed by the yankees – while they do recruit the better athletes, this fact states that really they tend to just reward their own home grown and discovered athletes with a handsome salary. but paying the athlete more money doesn't make the athlete a better athlete so the argument that the yankees win due to their payroll is specious and fallacious at best. derek jeter is the highest paid shortstop but he is far from the best short stop. alex rodriguez is the highest paid athlete in history, but he is far from the best 3rd baseman. mark texeira is one of the highest paid 1st basemen, but he is not the best. sabbathia is not the best and burnett is definitely light years away from being remotely close to the best. robinson cano has a microscopic salary compared to most people in major league baseball, but he is arguably the best 2nd baseman today – again that shows that it is the athlete and not the money that makes a team talented.

    also, before free agency began about 20 or so years ago, the yankees had already won the majority of their world series titles – thus they did not have an advantage in payroll at all, just an advantage in talent and the benefit of no free agency. also, remember that before the 1960's, the world series just consisted of the 2 teams with the best record in their respective leagues. there were no playoffs and less chances for a team to be knocked out, injured, tired or anything else that may prevent them from winning the world series. aka the 2 teams had a better shot at winning the world series then than they did now. and then is when the yankees won the majority of their titles.

    one more point – the fact that he points out that other teams with smaller payrolls keep winning proves what i am saying. the giants and the rangers did not have the best record in baseball but they played for the title – and the giants didn't clinch a playoff spot until the last day of the season. in baseball, money does not equate with winning. paying your athletes more money does not make them better athletes. lawyered.

    November 3, 2010 at 3:31 am | Reply
  35. Sean

    How refreshing to send a forgotten message to our children – that playing and working together as a team is more important than becoming a lone-ranger. Is it an accident that the Giants could do this now instead of the Bonds dominated era? The spirit of humility and togetherness was the winner of this world series. Good for baseball, good for the heart. Congrats to the Giants organization!!!

    November 3, 2010 at 7:35 am | Reply
  36. jc

    This article shows the problem in modern sport. You have to be a complete idiot to assume that some wins are better than other. If the NYY win next year, great! If Washington win, great as well!

    Those guys sweat their a**es during the season, entertaining us, let's be a little more respectful.

    November 3, 2010 at 10:57 am | Reply
  37. Aaron

    Collective amnesia is so awesome. It doesn't matter who we "want" to be in the World Series. That is the point of sports. This isn't politics. No matter how "popular" the Yankees and Phillies are, they got beat on the playing field, and frankly by better teams. You can argue for revenue and t.v. ratings all you want, but at the end of the day, professional sport is not professional wrestling, the outcome of the game is decided by a combination of talent, perseverance, and luck. The Giants were better than the Phillies when it counted, and the Texans beat the Yankees when it counted. End of story. By even publishing this article we are adding to the delusional mysticism that the Yankees have around their organization. They got beat, and then the team that beat THEM got beat. Lets let it go.

    November 3, 2010 at 11:02 am | Reply
  38. Jared

    FYI... Battleneter... Baseball teams are NOT only from the US. One team in the MLB is based in canada. And i believe the name "world series" is an actuate discription concidering the vast ammount of countries represented by the individual players.

    November 3, 2010 at 11:22 am | Reply
  39. rHr

    Another Yankee hater? Says who?... The article to me breathes love for baseball, nothing else. Please Yankee-fans, you have a great club to support, but don't be so uptight every time the name of your fav's gets mentioned.
    I have really enjoyed this past WS, and I really can't fathom how people could think Texas (even if it was spelled Taxas) wasn't giving it their all, being happy with the ALCS-title. LOL, no way.
    The same goes for there being no stars in this WS.... no stars? How about Lincecum, Lee, Guerrero, Burrell (even if they fell short, they're absolute stars), Renteria shooting a WS-clinching hit for the second time in his career, Uribe, Ross making himself a star..... Come on, people, please!
    MLB is a summer-long festivity, and I'm looking forward to March 31st 2011.

    November 3, 2010 at 11:29 am | Reply
  40. Dave

    This article was mis-titled .... more accurate would have been "Why I dislike the Yankees"

    November 3, 2010 at 11:50 am | Reply
  41. bdb

    Just proves that great pitching usually beats great offense. I would argue that both of these teams will be strong candidates to get back to the fall classic simply because most of their best players are back under contract, they have very solid fan bases, excellent management and have now tasted success – they know how to win the big ones.

    November 3, 2010 at 12:16 pm | Reply
  42. David E

    This is change!! NO B.O change. Finally new faces are up in baseball. I just love baseball and some of these Cinderella stories are fascinating.

    November 3, 2010 at 12:22 pm | Reply
  43. CARLOS

    Bad for Baseball or for the Media?? Great series and probably one of the best pitching battles in the last years!!

    November 3, 2010 at 1:09 pm | Reply
  44. Spankees

    I'm a die hard Yankees fanatic and congratulations to the Giants and San Francisco! We ain't hating... but apparently CNN is drinking too much of that tasteless haterade. You know what would be a really original breath of fresh air? Stop writing these articles about the Yankees after every season. Payroll this, salary that.. we still talking about this? Really? Get over it! Seriously.

    November 3, 2010 at 1:26 pm | Reply
  45. alehandro

    Is anyone going to start or stop watching Baseball because the Giants won the World Series and the Yankees didn't even get there? I highly doubt it. Baseball is one of those sports you either love or couldn't care less about. Not that you hate it, but that you're indifferent to it. Therefore, I think the question of whether or not there's a group of floaters who fall in or out of love with the game based on who is the World Series champion is pure nonsense designed solely for the purpose of discussion. Plus, to damn the Yankees because they have the money to buy winning teams is disingenuous, as every team in every sport would gladly take Yankees-style cash and use it to build their own super team if they could get it. So no, the Giants winning the World Series is not bad for baseball any more than the Yankees winning it would have been. If the best team won, however much the best team cost, the best team won, and that should be an end to it.

    November 3, 2010 at 1:46 pm | Reply
  46. A.S.

    The 2010 MLB playoffs became all about baseball as soon as Yankees fell by the wayside, it always puts a smile on my face when they lose, hate the Yankees! National Media, do your job and cover the game at hand and enjoy the effort put forth by all teams invovled. Great World Series, was pulling for Texas but I salute the Giants. Yankee go home.

    November 3, 2010 at 2:05 pm | Reply
  47. rHr

    Although being a Redsox fan, I completely agree with 'Yankees' here. Losing to the Yankees hurts when you're a Redsox fan, but the truth is that the Yankees normally have a great ballteam most of the time. Of course I'd be somewhat less thrilled when the Yankees win the WS (especially if it includes beating Boston in the earlier stages), but once whatever team makes it to the final round a baseball fan just has to stand up and applaud.
    It doesn't matter what the payroll is (impressive though the number might be). And it sure shouldn't matter as long as there's no rules, laws etc. that were broken. Which is not the case.
    I'm a European, and I find it most refreshing the way MLB (and other American sports-competitions) is set up. Complaining about the payroll is the way we'd handle the issue in the Netherlands, which to me isn't the way to support the sport one loves.

    November 3, 2010 at 2:45 pm | Reply
  48. supsup

    if the game is only play and won by the richest, most famous team, what is the meaning of sports? and what is the meaning of playing for win? mind as well just say, HEY Yankees, You won't again this year, on 1st day of the season. The answer is the team who plays the best wins.

    November 3, 2010 at 3:58 pm | Reply
  49. supsup

    seriously, if yankees and red sox wins every other year...I think no one will watch this sports coz it's so predictable and the result, it'll be even worse than what you talked about. hahahah

    November 3, 2010 at 4:00 pm | Reply
  50. Ker

    And, what about Renteria?

    November 3, 2010 at 4:07 pm | Reply
  51. obserbador

    edgar renteria the best

    November 3, 2010 at 6:32 pm | Reply
  52. David

    No offence to either team (or fans), but the 2010 WS was arguably one of the most boring ones in recent history. Found myself channel surfing more than watching games!

    November 3, 2010 at 7:39 pm | Reply
  53. Ara

    One of the reasons why people watch baseball and sports in general is to get away from the mundane of their lives; the economic woes & the absurdity of the rich 2-party politicians who try to overspend each other & sling mud.

    If baseball is reduced to the 2-team powerhouses with the biggest wallets, that win every other year, then the worth of the game is diminished.

    Fortunately for us and them, it is not always the one with the largest purses that wins it all.

    A salary cap for baseball, as well as election reform for American politics is long overdue...

    November 3, 2010 at 9:56 pm | Reply
  54. Michael

    If you want to make the playoffs more interesting, add a round and let 8 teams in. Not only will it entice more fans to watch the playoffs, it will make it harder for the Yankees to go deep and win the world series.

    November 3, 2010 at 10:49 pm | Reply
  55. Patrickhouston

    World series ... you got to be kidding... who beside the US is in the TV show? this is no sport but a TV show just like what they call American football... what a joke a one hour game lasting three hours.... a heck of a sport.. hahahahah!!! World series would mean the US and a bunch of foreign countries participation not just one calling itself the world.....
    A world game is real football – the game played with your feet – watched by zillions of people live and on TV!!! not baseball....

    November 3, 2010 at 11:15 pm | Reply
  56. Kent

    Well, then the Yankees should have made it TO the World Series.

    November 4, 2010 at 12:24 am | Reply
  57. David

    Hello I am a Yankee Fan I love the team but I loved this years world series as long as Boston was not there lol,,, I love Baseball in general the 5 games were great just show you how great pitching stops great hitting..

    good going Giants and better luck next Year Rangers

    November 4, 2010 at 1:45 am | Reply
  58. Nokla

    I live in San Francisco, and I greatly enjoyed us winning the World Series. I also lived in Dallas before this, and was equally proud of my Rangers for making it to the World Series.

    Now that that's out of the way, the problem I have with this article is that the writer seems to mix up different perspectives on what is "good" and "bad" for the game. When one says that something is "bad" for baseball, there are a few options – bad for the players, bad for those watching, or bad for the owners of teams and commissioners. Bad baseball for players is irrelevant for this article, and so there is just baseball that is "bad" for viewers and baseball that is "bad" for Selig & Co.

    "...Many baseball pundits will argue that in order to be most successful, the sport needs the big-market teams to shine come playoff time." Unless these pundits are from the New York area, I highly doubt they are talking about baseball being successful for the viewers. In this case, "success" is defined by the viewership numbers of the playoffs. Obviously, big-market teams like the Yankees and Red Sox draw in large viewership numbers. Therefore, in order to have a "successful" playoffs by the definition of Selig & Co., one of the big-market teams must play. This is not disputed by the writer, but he then states that he will argue why the Yankees are not a necessary evil for the game. The way to go about this argument in the correct context as defined before would be to discuss how viewership numbers will shift if a salary cap is implemented, or how greater marketing and better-advertised rivalries can increase viewership of smaller-market teams in the playoffs. Basically, anything that argues how teams in the playoffs other than the Yankees and Red Sox can still have high television ratings and not lose viewers to other programs. If the claim is that smaller-market teams will cause the World Series to have fewer viewers, then the correct dispute would be explaining why this is not the case or how this can be fixed.

    The writer does not do this, however, and instead insists that it is a "breath of fresh air" to see the Giants win the World Series. He writes, "The fact is that the Yankees’ title in 2009 was their only one this decade, and baseball has been just fine." This is an argument that the Giants winning the World Series is good for the viewer because it goes against the choke-hold the Yankees and Red Sox have on championships. This is all well and good, but it does not at all address the problem that viewership of this World Series was dramatically decreased from years the Yankees and Red Sox played, which is the exact reason pundits are claiming this to be "bad" for baseball. I argue that no pundit is saying that having the Yankees or Red Sox in the World Series every year is good for baseball fans, but instead is saying that these teams draw in greater viewership numbers and thus increase baseball's revenue. I have never heard anyone talk about the "glory years" of the Yankees in the 90's, unless they were speaking from the perspective of a Yankees fan or using it in the historical sense (e.g. "The 1700s were the glory years for English imperialism"). I believe that the writer is incorrect when he states that "a big part of the national media will hope the Yankees bounce back, arguing that it will be good for the game". This may be the case, but not for the reasons that the writer seems to believe. They will say this because it will allow baseball to have the high viewership numbers it has when the big-market teams are in the playoffs, rather than smaller teams. They will not say this because they think better baseball is played when these two teams are playing. Because of this, the writer is fundamentally arguing with people who are talking about something else entirely different from what he is.

    November 4, 2010 at 1:47 am | Reply
  59. Mrhog4u

    I was ecstatic when the Yankees lost. Then again since I'm a Giants fan, it was bad luck because now we can't say that we also beat the Yankee. Never the less, WE ARE THE WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS FOR 2010!!!

    November 4, 2010 at 3:39 am | Reply
  60. deckroid

    Hey Ryan, Sam may not be able to stop the Yankees but gee sure looks like Rangers did.

    November 4, 2010 at 5:14 am | Reply
  61. Scotchorama

    If the Yankees have the biggest payroll, that is because their owners, the Steinbrenners, have decided to focus on the Yankees and invest in them. Several other MLB franchise owners have decided not to; if John Henry could have invested more in the Red Sox, but decided to go for Liverpool instead. And the Steinbrenners aren't even the wealthiest franchise owners: Jim Pohlad, owner of the Twins, is far wealthier. It's not that the Yankees spend far more than the others; it is the others who spend far less than the Yankees.

    November 4, 2010 at 7:26 am | Reply
  62. Herve Cerisoles

    Great Series. Interesting that the Giants' excellent pitching buzzed through the Philies & Rangers bats while the Braves were the only team that gave them a run for their money but succumbed to lousy defensive field play.

    November 4, 2010 at 8:19 pm | Reply
  63. Frank

    The San Francisco Giants winning the World Series is good for Major League Baseball. It is another reminder that if you spend wisely, your return can be great. However, some teams have little or no chance to make it to the playoffs because of the difficulty to generate more revenue. If the same 'great' teams made the playoffs year after year, only the hard core fans outside those markets would have any interest in watching the playoffs. Why should fans show up to any regular season games if reaching the World Series is impossible? More parity is needed in baseball today. Otherwise ratings and attendance will continue to decline in those markets that keep on losing year after year.

    November 6, 2010 at 9:32 am | Reply
  64. josh

    maybe they shouldnt have scheduled a game during the colts texans monday night game!

    November 6, 2010 at 3:12 pm | Reply
  65. toddsaed

    May be all wrong here, but do the ones who enthusiastically embrace underdogs like the Giants, and root for more of the same in the future,show their left of center democratic ideals, and the ones who favor the status quo, domination by the richer teams to continue, show their right of center plutocratic authoritarian leanings?

    November 14, 2010 at 4:05 am | Reply
  66. fox45

    Timely hittng beats good pitching. No body beat the Giants pitching. They beat every opponent at the opponent's field. They beat:

    LOWE
    HALLADAY
    LEE........................twice in the World Series

    They beat every opponent at that oppenen'ts venue with class and dignity.

    Don't ever take it away from them.

    November 22, 2010 at 7:26 am | Reply

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.