Entertainment Value

[Ltlabner]

What do you consider "entertainment value"?

Is it only entertainment value if you win the world serries? The NLCS? Just make the playoffs? Just be competitive and in the hunt? Or just play a baseball game and don't care about the outcome? There is a spectrum full of choices, none of which are right or wrong but it does explain a lot of the positions that are taken here at RZ.

If someone considers nothing short of the NLCS as "entertainment value" because winning is everything then it makes total sense why they would consider any move short of a big time star worthless. If someone is just happy to see a baseball game then it makes total sense why they wouldn't be indignant over every transaction and appear as applogists.

It all boils down to what you consider entertainment value. I just want to go see baseball played at the major league level, sit in nice seats and enjoy the time at the ballpark. As long as the price I pay is comissurate with the baseball being played I am happy. I certinally want the Reds to do well, but I'm not as concerned with winning and losing at the ballpark because that's not why I go. That's just me and as I said before there is no "right or wrong" in this discussion.

[oneupper]

Your favorite teams are like your kids.

You love them even if they screw up...
You hope they don't...but...

[Redsland]

It's entertaining if you believe they can win every night, and they hold your attention for three hours.

When Juan Castro hits second against Randy Johnson or John Bale starts, it's not so entertaining.

[Spring~Fields]

I can’t really define entertainment value. I can determine that chronic losing is not associated with fine performers or great performances in sports. I can perceive that bad performances are like bad “B” movies leaving one with a sense of chagrin and dismay. I can discern that if I am observing losses, I am observing poor performances. Is it possible to receive entertainment value through poor performances?

To see just a ballgame I might find it very entertaining to see an A, AA, AAA game where that level of players are still trying to learn the game, I might even attend a little league game and find value coupled with enjoyment.

[Ltlabner]

I can discern that if I am observing losses, I am observing poor performances. Is it possible to receive entertainment value through poor performances?

A very interesting question. If you eqate a win with a good performance with entertaining (ie. only wins are entertaining) then a loss by definition would not be entertaining. If a loss by definition is the result of poor performance then I'd say you'd find losses pretty dull.

But are losses strictly the result of poor performances? Could both teams play well and one slightly better than the other? That would be entertinaing to me (the good ole good one) but maybe not to others if your team is the one who doesn't win. Or a team could play well in the 1st through 8th innings only to fall apart in the 9th. While they lost the game, they played well for far longer than they played poorly. Again, I'd find that dissapointing but still entertaining.

For me, a trip to the ballpark is an event that encompases more that what takes place on the field. I've been to minor league games where they played well....and it just wasnt the same. I enjoy the ballpark, the mass of people, the food, the noises, complaining about the pre-game cermonies, watching gapper harrass pretty middle aged women, and watching the game. So while a loss, especially when the Reds play horribly is not the result I'd like, the overall event is still entertaining. To me, it always beats out watching a movie, a play or some other entertainment option.

[WVRedsFan]

A very interesting question. If you eqate a win with a good performance with entertaining (ie. only wins are entertaining) then a loss by definition would not be entertaining. If a loss by definition is the result of poor performance then I'd say you'd find losses pretty dull.

But are losses strictly the result of poor performances? Could both teams play well and one slightly better than the other? That would be entertinaing to me (the good ole good one) but maybe not to others if your team is the one who doesn't win. Or a team could play well in the 1st through 8th innings only to fall apart in the 9th. While they lost the game, they played well for far longer than they played poorly. Again, I'd find that dissapointing but still entertaining.

For me, a trip to the ballpark is an event that encompases more that what takes place on the field. I've been to minor league games where they played well....and it just wasnt the same. I enjoy the ballpark, the mass of people, the food, the noises, complaining about the pre-game cermonies, watching gapper harrass pretty middle aged women, and watching the game. So while a loss, especially when the Reds play horribly is not the result I'd like, the overall event is still entertaining. To me, it always beats out watching a movie, a play or some other entertainment option.

I totally agree. Going to a major league game is an entertaining event regardless of the outcome. If I go to a Reds game, I'm entertained because it is a rare event for me, living 300 miles away. But I've been to MLB games in LA, SF, Pittsburgh, a lot of places and I always came away entertained and had a good time.

Having said that, following a team day after day is frustrating when the team makes the same mistakes over and over for years at a time. I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be better if I only checked on the Reds once a week to see how they've done. My blood pressure would be better, I'm sure, but I can't do that. I'm a lifer.

[Roy Tucker]

For me, a trip to the ballpark is an event that encompases more that what takes place on the field. I've been to minor league games where they played well....and it just wasnt the same. I enjoy the ballpark, the mass of people, the food, the noises, complaining about the pre-game cermonies, watching gapper harrass pretty middle aged women, and watching the game. So while a loss, especially when the Reds play horribly is not the result I'd like, the overall event is still entertaining. To me, it always beats out watching a movie, a play or some other entertainment option.

I enjoy this too. Going to a major league game is like pizza or sex, even when it's bad, it's still pretty good. There are always a good number of entertaining things going on that make it fun.

However, this holds true for a only a certain number of games per year. After repeated viewings of ineptitude, all of the secondary things wear off and it's the quality of play on the field.

If the quality of play gets established at fairly low, it ceases to be a given that a day at the ballpark trumps a good movie, a good play, a good music show, Kings Island, etc. At least for me. I'll always have a core number of games I go to per year. But anything beyond that depends on wins and losses.

You can't just roll the ball out there and expect droves of fans to show up all year (i.e. the Carl Lindner model).

[Spring~Fields]

A very interesting question. If you eqate a win with a good performance with entertaining (ie. only wins are entertaining) then a loss by definition would not be entertaining. If a loss by definition is the result of poor performance then I'd say you'd find losses pretty dull. Most sports fans would consider their favorite team losing "dull" and uneventful. Competitive is an uncomfortable word to some, but most recognize it as entertaining in sports.


But are losses strictly the result of poor performances? I would say that losses are a bi-product of being out performed at some point in the performance in question.




Could both teams play well and one slightly better than the other?

Yes, and the team that played slightly better than the other would be considered the better performer and consequently worth more in exchange for dollar considerations to see.



For me, a trip to the ballpark is an event that encompases more that what takes place on the field. I've been to minor league games where they played well....and it just wasnt the same. I enjoy the ballpark, the mass of people, the food, the noises, complaining about the pre-game cermonies, watching gapper harrass pretty middle aged women, and watching the game. So while a loss, especially when the Reds play horribly is not the result I'd like, the overall event is still entertaining. To me, it always beats out watching a movie, a play or some other entertainment option.

That would be going beyond the ballgame, and those are nice additions, or you could say value added that comes in adition to watching the "ballgame".

I on the other hand find it entertaining to see people achieve their primary goals.

The primary goal of sports is to excel, to excel over ones previous performances or another’s performance when in direct competition. In baseball the primary goal for a team is to win a game, and over the course of their season to win more games than they lose. When one or a team does not achieve their “goal” then goal blocking has occurred, and continued goal blocking leads to frustration and eventually apathy, which then leads to de-motivation. Frustration, apathy, demotivation, are not commonly associated with entertainment.

[Ltlabner]

That would be going beyond the ballgame, and those are nice additions, or you could say value added that comes in adition to watching the "ballgame".

I on the other hand find it entertaining to see people achieve their primary goals.

And this is why I think it's interesting to hear what people find entertaining. I view it exactly oppisate as you do; I find the experience entertaining and the winning as a value add. You find the winning entertaining and the experience as a value add. It's all driven by personal preferences.

I don't go to a ballgame to view excellence per se. For me personally, I look for that in my own life and profession. That's where I want to see people achieve their primary goals...cheif amoung them is me! Competition is a wonderfull and healthy thing. I have no adversion to competition, in fact my carear in sales is nothing but competion where only the best survive. Maybe because of this I look to the event of a baseball game as an escape, not another avenue to take place in a rat race of sorts.

[Spring~Fields]

And this is why I think it's interesting to hear what people find entertaining. I view it exactly oppisate as you do; I find the experience entertaining and the winning as a value add. You find the winning entertaining and the experience as a value add. It's all driven by personal preferences.

I don't go to a ballgame to view excellence per se. For me personally, I look for that in my own life and profession. That's where I want to see people achieve their primary goals...cheif amoung them is me! Competition is a wonderfull and healthy thing. I have no adversion to competition, in fact my carear in sales is nothing but competion where only the best survive. Maybe because of this I look to the event of a baseball game as an escape, not another avenue to take place in a rat race of sorts.

I can understand your entertainment values and how they address your needs and wants. I am sure that most of us take that same position in various other areas when attempting to meet our wants and needs too.

Winning a game is not important to some and I certainly can understand that, certainly social interaction can be far more entertaining, with a great deal more value than winning a sporting event. Many fans on the board last season spoke of just enjoying the games and appeared to have no problem with their favorite losing. GAC comes to mind as a fan who simply enjoys the social interaction, analysis of the games, and winning seems to be secondary to him, which I think is just fine, annoying but fine. ;)

[Johnny Footstool]

I enjoy this too. Going to a major league game is like pizza or sex, even when it's bad, it's still pretty good. There are always a good number of entertaining things going on that make it fun.

Try going to a Royals game. It's like having sex with a pizza. And man, those anchovies bite.

[Patpacillosjock]

It is damn near impossible to be "entertained" in the present state of baseball culture unless your team is making it to the playoffs and has a chance to win the WOrld Series. Winning means all.

One could argue that the Boston Red Sox/Chicago Cubs fans were entertained for a century of losing per se (with a few moments of winning)

However long gone are the days of that kind of attachment to a team. Back in the old days of baseball and cities like Boston and Chicago, everybody could have a personal relationship with the team. The team was part of your family because your family was there with the team. Postal workers, factory workers, truck drivers, and other types of lower-type income guys could afford a couple of tickets, a couple of dogs and a beer for him and his son. It would be a family tradition for a dad and his son to grow up in the city, root for their team for years..then when that son had a son, he too would take him to the game and teach him about the history of the Sox/cubs.

People who were middle class workers would usually stay in that city because of work. Their children would stay and work in that city and their children's children.

Nowadays in corporate america, baseball has become too commercial. Those same people cant afford season tickets to games. that family tradition is lost and has become a culture of people with money who pay large sums of money to root for a particular major league team. And because it costs so much, they feel like the team is obligated to not just entertain but to win at all costs. (i.e. I paid $5000 for season tickets, therefore that team OWES it to me to win the W.S.--not just "play well")

I grew up in the tail-end era of the tradition. I remember when Kirby Puckett was the highest paid player in the majors at 3 million a year.

This "innocence" is what baseball the nation's past-time. Now its just another overy-hyped, MTV-style, soap opera TV show.

just my 2 cents

[Spring~Fields]

Patpacillosjock

I like the way that you chose to express yourself in another view from the rest of us. I had forgotten that there use to be a genuine love affair for baseball as if was actually extended family.

[RedsManRick]

The game, in and of itself, is only so entertaining. If all I wanted to see was baseball, I could check the local t-ball fields for free. MLB's added value is 2 things: 1.) a level of execution that can be seen nowhere else and 2.) competition. That's where I derive the entertainment value.

From the aesthetic side, I enjoy seeing rare athletic feats. That's fun stuff. From the competitive side, I enjoy having a rooting interest in something. There's a camaraderie and community that is plainly enjoyable. A bad baseball team robs you primarily of the first, but if they're bad enough for long enough, can rob you on the 2nd one too.