Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Fri Nov 28, 2014 3:13 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: I'm curious
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:19 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:01 pm
Posts: 7288
So does this make Ray Lewis the Super Bowl's Hoka Hey?

_________________
I say keep the $50 and ban him anyway...

For those jumping ship, we'll keep the bandwagon warm for you...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm curious
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 2:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5893
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
LetsGoMarauders wrote:
Hey No.9 - this might help

i·ron·ic
[ahy-ron-ik] Show IPA
adjective
1.using words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning; containing or exemplifying irony: an ironic novel; an ironic remark.
2.of, pertaining to, or tending to use irony or mockery; ironical.
3.coincidental; unexpected: It was ironic that I was seated next to my ex-husband at the dinner.
Origin:1620–30; < Late Latin īrōnicus < Greek eirōnikós dissembling, insincere. See irony, -ic


Yep. Unexpected . . .

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm curious
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 7:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:00 am
Posts: 3138
J_C_Steel wrote:
Obsess much?


Wait, you're calling someone else obsessive regarding DK? No offense but I have actually wondered if you actually are DK in disguise before the way you fire off multi-paragraph posts like clockwork coming to his defense any time an opinion of his is questioned by someone here.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm curious
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:55 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5184
Location: Washington, DC
TheShark wrote:
J_C_Steel wrote:
Obsess much?


Wait, you're calling someone else obsessive regarding DK? No offense but I have actually wondered if you actually are DK in disguise before the way you fire off multi-paragraph posts like clockwork coming to his defense any time an opinion of his is questioned by someone here.


I've discussed his baseball columns on here, usually in threads that I have not started. I certainly haven't posted non-baseball articles on the Pirates message board. You don't see a difference there?

I discuss Pirates baseball. When DK writes about and people here discuss it, I'll chime in. But this thread has NOTHING TO DO with Pirates baseball. Hence, it's "DK obsession" that start this thread.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm curious
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:55 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5184
Location: Washington, DC
No. 9 wrote:
DK has no shortage of civic pride and his writing quite often is filled with pro-Pittsburgh hyperbole. I find it interesting that he finds the pro-Super Bowl hyperbole by American media members to be irritating. Why wouldn't the American media be promoting the Super Bowl as the biggest sporting event in the world? No different than a member of the Pittsburgh media promoting all things Pittsburgh . . .


There's a difference between civic pride and simple facts about viewership of the Super Bowl.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm curious
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5893
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
J_C_Steel wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
DK has no shortage of civic pride and his writing quite often is filled with pro-Pittsburgh hyperbole. I find it interesting that he finds the pro-Super Bowl hyperbole by American media members to be irritating. Why wouldn't the American media be promoting the Super Bowl as the biggest sporting event in the world? No different than a member of the Pittsburgh media promoting all things Pittsburgh . . .


There's a difference between civic pride and simple facts about viewership of the Super Bowl.


I invite you to read some of his rantings when someone refers to Pittsburgh as being a small market baseball team. Or his dismissiveness of other cities.

I actually have no problem with having pride in where you live. I happen to have been born in and currently live in a state which is usually the butt of late night comedians' jokes. I have an immense amount of pride when it comes to what Iowa has to offer and about the people (at least those who live in the eastern 2/3rds of the state; the western 1/3 . . . they're a little on the loony side!) who live here.

DK views Pittsburgh as a panacea and he's not afraid to climb to the mountaintop and share those thoughts - even when it is blatant "homerism." Not surprising coming from a Pittsburgh native writing for a Pittsburgh newspaper. I'd expect the same from a New Yorker or someone from Cincinnati. But . . . to be annoyed when the same type of "homerism" is expressed by national writers? Bleh . . .

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm curious
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5893
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
J_C_Steel wrote:
TheShark wrote:
J_C_Steel wrote:
Obsess much?


Wait, you're calling someone else obsessive regarding DK? No offense but I have actually wondered if you actually are DK in disguise before the way you fire off multi-paragraph posts like clockwork coming to his defense any time an opinion of his is questioned by someone here.


I've discussed his baseball columns on here, usually in threads that I have not started. I certainly haven't posted non-baseball articles on the Pirates message board. You don't see a difference there?

I discuss Pirates baseball. When DK writes about and people here discuss it, I'll chime in. But this thread has NOTHING TO DO with Pirates baseball. Hence, it's "DK obsession" that start this thread.


My commentary is certainly related to his rantings when anyone refers to Pittsburgh as a small market baseball town. Its been a topic of many posts here over the years as well as the topic of whether his writings about Pittsburgh sports lacks a certain objectivity. If he wants to demand objectivity and accuracy from the national media, then . . . well . . . what do they say about those who live in glass houses?

Sorry if I offended your sensitivities by offering an observation about your favorite columnist. However, last I checked, that's one of the main purposes of a Message Board.

BTW, I'm pretty sure that your "Ronnie Cedeno sucks" and "Draft Anthony Rendon" posts outnumber - by a long shot - any commentary that I've offered on DK. Put that in your OCD pipe and smoke it.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm curious
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5184
Location: Washington, DC
No. 9 wrote:
I invite you to read some of his rantings when someone refers to Pittsburgh as being a small market baseball team. Or his dismissiveness of other cities.


I've read those. He uses FACTS about market size and compares Pittsburgh to Cincy and St. Louis and Cleveland. Please explain how he is "dismissive" of other cites. Accusations unsupported by facts do not impress me.

No. 9 wrote:
I actually have no problem with having pride in where you live. I happen to have been born in and currently live in a state which is usually the butt of late night comedians' jokes. I have an immense amount of pride when it comes to what Iowa has to offer and about the people (at least those who live in the eastern 2/3rds of the state; the western 1/3 . . . they're a little on the loony side!) who live here.


Good for you.

No. 9 wrote:
DK views Pittsburgh as a panacea and he's not afraid to climb to the mountaintop and share those thoughts - even when it is blatant "homerism." Not surprising coming from a Pittsburgh native writing for a Pittsburgh newspaper. I'd expect the same from a New Yorker or someone from Cincinnati. But . . . to be annoyed when the same type of "homerism" is expressed by national writers? Bleh . . .


DK is absolutely honest and up front about his "homerism" and love of Pittsburgh. In fact, when he describes Pittsburgh he explains the subjectivity of his views. That stands in stark contrast to NFL personnel describing the Super Bowl as "the biggest event in sports" -- that is a statement presented as an objective fact. And it happens to be incorrect.

If you don't see the difference, then you're not paying attention. Perhaps your blind dislike for DK prevents YOU from being objective...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm curious
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5184
Location: Washington, DC
No. 9 wrote:
My commentary is certainly related to his rantings when anyone refers to Pittsburgh as a small market baseball town. Its been a topic of many posts here over the years as well as the topic of whether his writings about Pittsburgh sports lacks a certain objectivity. If he wants to demand objectivity and accuracy from the national media, then . . . well . . . what do they say about those who live in glass houses?


Read your thread title and first post in this thread. You make no mention of articles regarding Pittsburgh being a small market town or ANYTHING related to baseball. Instead, you post a link to an article that has nothing to do with baseball. I have no idea why it's still even in this forum.

No. 9 wrote:
Sorry if I offended your sensitivities by offering an observation about your favorite columnist. However, last I checked, that's one of the main purposes of a Message Board.


You didn't offend me at all. I found it amusing that you're so obsessed with DK that you're posting non-baseball articles in the Pirates forum.

Oh, and your entire premise is wrong, as I dutifully explain in my prior post.

No. 9 wrote:
BTW, I'm pretty sure that your "Ronnie Cedeno sucks" and "Draft Anthony Rendon" posts outnumber - by a long shot - any commentary that I've offered on DK. Put that in your OCD pipe and smoke it.


You do realize that my "Ronnie Cedeno sucks" and "Draft Anthony Rendon" are actually baseball-related, right? Right? Good.

Oh, and I stopped posting about Cedeno when he left the team. I also stopped posting about Rendon after he was drafted by the Nationals. I didn't post to, say, an article about Cedeno opening a used car dealership in Saskatchewan, which is the rough equivalent of your posting to a non-baseball-related DK article.

Enjoy your Monday.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm curious
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5893
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
J_C_Steel wrote:
I've read those. He uses FACTS about market size and compares Pittsburgh to Cincy and St. Louis and Cleveland. Please explain how he is "dismissive" of other cites. Accusations unsupported by facts do not impress me.


The next time that I come to this site with the purpose of "impressing you" will be the first. Its never been a goal of mine . . . and I can't imagine that it ever will be.

J_C_Steel wrote:
Perhaps your blind dislike for DK prevents YOU from being objective...


I don't dislike him - not at all. He was incredibly generous with his time when I met him at old TRS and showed me - first hand - his love for the city and the immense amount of pride when PNC Park and Heinz Field were being built. He's responded to many personal emails and has been more than upfront in his responses to my questions or comments. He's in the commentary and opinion business, it lends itself to generating commentary and reacting to his opinions.

There are times that I strong disagreements with my business partners and have no qualms about telling them to their face that I disagree - sometimes in tones that some might consider to be less than civil. Doesn't stop me from having a beer with them afterwards and enjoying their company. My wife and I also don't see eye-to-eye on all things and when we don't see eye-to-eye on an issue that we both passionately believe in . . . yikes. Didn't force me to run to the courthouse and file for divorce. The world is not black and white. Lots of grey in there.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm curious
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5184
Location: Washington, DC
Way to avoid responding to the substance of my responses, No. 9. Well played. And when I wrote "[a]ccusations unsupported by facts do not impress me", perhaps I should have re-worded it to "[a]ccusations unsupported by facts" do not support an argument. Yeah. That's better.

In any case, DK's subjective views about Pittsburgh are very different from allegedly factual proclamations that the Super Bowl is the biggest event in sports. So the "point" you were trying to make with this thread simply doesn't exist.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm curious
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 3:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:11 pm
Posts: 5893
Location: 120 miles west of Iowa City
J_C_Steel wrote:
Way to avoid responding to the substance of my responses, No. 9. Well played. And when I wrote "[a]ccusations unsupported by facts do not impress me", perhaps I should have re-worded it to "[a]ccusations unsupported by facts" do not support an argument. Yeah. That's better.

In any case, DK's subjective views about Pittsburgh are very different from allegedly factual proclamations that the Super Bowl is the biggest event in sports. So the "point" you were trying to make with this thread simply doesn't exist.


If I was submitting a brief to a court and you were sitting on the bench wearing a black robe, then I might spend time Googling a cache of past writings. However, since I'm posting an opinion on a Message Board read by numerous long time participants (at this site and at www.sportsonly.com/10514), I see no need to do so. There's a long history there as I'm sure others can attest.

But, until Bucco Boy vests you with the title of Judge JC and you serve are the final authority and arbiter of all matters posted here, I'll stick with my current approach. Your comments are duly noted.

_________________
Reflexively, obsessively and tastelessly submitted,
No. 9
Obsessive proponent of situational bunting and 2 strike hitting approaches, reflexively pro-catchers calling good games and tasteless proponent of the value of a RBI.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm curious
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 3:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5184
Location: Washington, DC
Fair enough. I am not a judge, here or anywhere else. I just don't agree with your argument in this thread, which I find poorly conceived, confusingly delivered, and ultimately incorrect.

Carry on.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm curious
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 3:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5517
Location: Pittsburgh
J_C_Steel wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
I invite you to read some of his rantings when someone refers to Pittsburgh as being a small market baseball team. Or his dismissiveness of other cities.


I've read those. He uses FACTS about market size and compares Pittsburgh to Cincy and St. Louis and Cleveland.

Bullshit. There are precisely FOUR major league teams residing in markets smaller than Pittsburgh, unless I missed one. Of those four, Cincinnati and Cleveland both draw on other markets that put them far ahead of Pittsburgh. In what world is ranking 26th out of thirty in market size anything other than a small market?

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm curious
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5184
Location: Washington, DC
sisyphus wrote:
J_C_Steel wrote:
No. 9 wrote:
I invite you to read some of his rantings when someone refers to Pittsburgh as being a small market baseball team. Or his dismissiveness of other cities.


I've read those. He uses FACTS about market size and compares Pittsburgh to Cincy and St. Louis and Cleveland.

Bullshit. There are precisely FOUR major league teams residing in markets smaller than Pittsburgh, unless I missed one. Of those four, Cincinnati and Cleveland both draw on other markets that put them far ahead of Pittsburgh. In what world is ranking 26th out of thirty in market size anything other than a small market?


First, you're only providing rankings, not relative size. If a market has 10,000 more people than the Greater Pittsburgh Area, is it a bigger market or of a similar size? Where do you draw that line?

Second, where are you getting your numbers? Here's a 2010 DMA ranking that you didn't cite (which has Pittsburgh ranked 24th, ahead of Cincy, Baltimore, Milwaukee, and others):

http://www.sporcle.com/games/DzPshr13/mlbtvmarket

Cleveland Indians (1,526,200 households)
St. Louis Cardinals (1,258,580 households)
Pittsburgh Pirates (1,160,820 households)
Baltimore Orioles (1,108,360 households)
Cincinnati Reds (923,830 households)
Milwaukee Brewers (901,100 households)

These cities are in similarly-sized market markets, my friends. And, according to these numbers, the Pirates are in a bigger market than the Reds and Brewers. The point that DK has always made is that, given relative market size, there is no reason the Pirates should not be able to spend what the Reds, Brewers, or even Cardinals spend on payroll. Based on market size, how is that "bullshit"?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm curious
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5517
Location: Pittsburgh
J_C_Steel wrote:
First, you're only providing rankings, not relative size. If a market has 10,000 more people than the Greater Pittsburgh Area, is it a bigger market or of a similar size? Where do you draw that line?

Second, where are you getting your numbers? Here's a 2010 DMA ranking that you didn't cite (which has Pittsburgh ranked 24th, ahead of Cincy, Baltimore, Milwaukee, and others):

http://www.sporcle.com/games/DzPshr13/mlbtvmarket

Cleveland Indians (1,526,200 households)
St. Louis Cardinals (1,258,580 households)
Pittsburgh Pirates (1,160,820 households)
Baltimore Orioles (1,108,360 households)
Cincinnati Reds (923,830 households)
Milwaukee Brewers (901,100 households)

These cities are in similarly-sized market markets, my friends. And, according to these numbers, the Pirates are in a bigger market than the Reds and Brewers. The point that DK has always made is that, given relative market size, there is no reason the Pirates should not be able to spend what the Reds, Brewers, or even Cardinals spend on payroll. Based on market size, how is that "bullshit"?

The point that DK has always made is that Pittsburgh is not a SMALL MARKET. He's wrong. It is a small market.

I wasn't listing TV markets. I was listing metro areas. It looks to me like the Pirates fare even worse in your list; there are only three teams with smaller TV markets. Cleveland's TV market is 31% bigger than Pittsburgh's. I'd hardly call that a comparable market. Not to mention that Cleveland and Cincinnati both draw from the Columbus market, which is no slouch. St. Louis draws from a huge market that includes half of Illinois, most of Indiana, part of Iowa, much of the south, and more. It's market is vastly larger than indicated by either the TV market size or metro area. The only team on that entire list that is truly comparable to Pittsburgh is Milwaukee.

Any way you choose to look at it, TV market or metro area, Pittsburgh is one of the smallest markets in the major leagues.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm curious
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:50 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5184
Location: Washington, DC
sisyphus wrote:
The point that DK has always made is that Pittsburgh is not a SMALL MARKET. He's wrong. It is a small market.


No he hasn't. What he's always explained is that Pittsburgh is not a small market compared to other teams IN ITS DIVISION. Which he uses to argue that the Reds, Cardinals, and Brewers should not consistently out-spend the Pirates at the major league level. And, based on market, he's 100% correct.

sisyphus wrote:
I wasn't listing TV markets. I was listing metro areas. It looks to me like the Pirates fare even worse in your list; there are only three teams with smaller TV markets. Cleveland's TV market is 31% bigger than Pittsburgh's. I'd hardly call that a comparable market. Not to mention that Cleveland and Cincinnati both draw from the Columbus market, which is no slouch. St. Louis draws from a huge market that includes half of Illinois, most of Indiana, part of Iowa, much of the south, and more. It's market is vastly larger than indicated by either the TV market size or metro area. The only team on that entire list that is truly comparable to Pittsburgh is Milwaukee.


First, the Pirates get better local television ratings than Cleveland or Cincy or Milwaukee. That increases Pittsburgh's value as a market.

Second, the Pittsburgh baseball market also extends into Ohio, down into West Virginia (Morgantown and Charleston are decent markets), and across the state into Harrisburg.

Third, there is no reason, based on market size, to describe Pittsburgh as a "smaller market" than Cincy, St. Louis, and Milwaukee. They are all of comparable market size.

sisyphus wrote:
Any way you choose to look at it, TV market or metro area, Pittsburgh is one of the smallest markets in the major leagues.


Pittsburgh is in the same market size category as St. Louis, Cincy, and Milwaukee. Call it small or call it moderate, doesn't matter. They're in the same class as those three teams in their division, all of which have been to the playoffs multiple times over the last 10 years with payrolls that far out-strip the Pirates'...


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm curious
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5184
Location: Washington, DC
Here's a representative example of a DK column discussing relative market size. Sisyphus -- kindly point out any part of this article that is "bullshit." Thanks.

http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sp ... z2JxLt9JK1

Note the 2010 Census information in the article:

Major League Baseball's five smallest markets, based on the 2010 U.S. Census:

Pittsburgh, Population: 2,356,285 (U.S. rank: 22)
Cincinnati, Population: 2,130,151 (27)
Cleveland, Population: 2,077,240 (28)
Kansas City, Population: 2,035,334 (29)
Milwaukee, Population: 1,555,908 (39)


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm curious
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5517
Location: Pittsburgh
J_C_Steel wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
The point that DK has always made is that Pittsburgh is not a SMALL MARKET. He's wrong. It is a small market.


No he hasn't. What he's always explained is that Pittsburgh is not a small market compared to other teams IN ITS DIVISION. Which he uses to argue that the Reds, Cardinals, and Brewers should not consistently out-spend the Pirates at the major league level. And, based on market, he's 100% correct.


Tell you what, J.C., you head on over to Dejan's blog and type up a nice, long post complaining about Pittsburgh's market size, and we'll see what he says.

Quote:
sisyphus wrote:
I wasn't listing TV markets. I was listing metro areas. It looks to me like the Pirates fare even worse in your list; there are only three teams with smaller TV markets. Cleveland's TV market is 31% bigger than Pittsburgh's. I'd hardly call that a comparable market. Not to mention that Cleveland and Cincinnati both draw from the Columbus market, which is no slouch. St. Louis draws from a huge market that includes half of Illinois, most of Indiana, part of Iowa, much of the south, and more. It's market is vastly larger than indicated by either the TV market size or metro area. The only team on that entire list that is truly comparable to Pittsburgh is Milwaukee.


First, the Pirates get better local television ratings than Cleveland or Cincy or Milwaukee. That increases Pittsburgh's value as a market.


But it doesn't put more butts in seats.

Quote:
Second, the Pittsburgh baseball market also extends into Ohio, down into West Virginia (Morgantown and Charleston are decent markets), and across the state into Harrisburg.

Third, there is no reason, based on market size, to describe Pittsburgh as a "smaller market" than Cincy, St. Louis, and Milwaukee. They are all of comparable market size.


If you want to argue with yourself, feel free. I've stated repeatedly that Pittsburgh is one of the smallest markets in major league baseball. I stated that because it's a fact.

And you're dead wrong about St. Louis, by the way. They draw from an enormous base that they established back when it was the farthest big league city to the west and to the south.

Quote:
sisyphus wrote:
Any way you choose to look at it, TV market or metro area, Pittsburgh is one of the smallest markets in the major leagues.


Pittsburgh is in the same market size category as St. Louis, Cincy, and Milwaukee.


Arguing with yourself again. Stop with the straw men.

Quote:
Call it small or call it moderate, doesn't matter.


It matters when you tote up the revenues.

Quote:
They're in the same class as those three teams in their division, all of which have been to the playoffs multiple times over the last 10 years with payrolls that far out-strip the Pirates'...


Straw man again. And, in the case of St. Louis especially, do you really want to compare their revenues with Pittsburgh's?

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: I'm curious
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:47 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:46 pm
Posts: 5184
Location: Washington, DC
Sisyphus -- please look up the word "strawman." It does not mean what you think it means.

You interjected yourself into this thread with the following (rather offensive) post:

sisyphus wrote:
Bullshit. There are precisely FOUR major league teams residing in markets smaller than Pittsburgh, unless I missed one. Of those four, Cincinnati and Cleveland both draw on other markets that put them far ahead of Pittsburgh. In what world is ranking 26th out of thirty in market size anything other than a small market?


Profanity aside, you attempted to make the point that Pittsburgh is a small market because it is ranked 26th out of 30 in market size.

I patiently responded by making the following salient points (none of them "strawmen"): (1) relative size is more pertinent to the debate than rankings, and (2) your rankings may not be the consensus. I provided two other ranking matrices.

You responded as follows:

sisyphus wrote:
The point that DK has always made is that Pittsburgh is not a SMALL MARKET. He's wrong. It is a small market.


Ah, so your "point" was that DK says Pittsburgh is not a small market for baseball. Interesting.

I happened to prove you wrong on this point by providing a link to an article (actual evidence!) by DK in which he acknowledges that Pittsburgh is one of the five smallest markets in Major League Baseball. Here's that link again:

http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sp ... z2JxLt9JK1

I also made the following points to support my argument, and DK's argument, that Pittsburgh's market size is comparable to teams within its division, as well as Cleveland (again, none of them "strawmen"): (1) the Pirates get excellent local television ratings, increasing its market value, (2) Pittsburgh baseball market also extends into Ohio, down into West Virginia (Morgantown and Charleston are decent markets), and across the state into Harrisburg, and (3) given the relative similarities in population and the factors noted in points (1) and (2), Pittsburgh is in a comparable market to Cincy, St. Louis, and Milwaukee.

The last, conclusory point is not a strawman, but rather mine and DK's point ALL ALONG. Whether you describe Pittsburgh as a "small market" or not is immaterial. That's a term. That's rhetoric. And with respect to DK, it's misleading -- he acknowledges in the above-linked article that Pittsburgh is in one of the five smallest markets in MLB. Ultimately, in sports, what matters is relative market size and value, and the Pittsburgh Pirates are in a baseball market of comparable size to teams in its own division that have done a far better job at creating a good baseball product (Cincy, Milwaukee, St. Louis).

Finally, you make two points at the end of your post that reveal a stunning lack of economic understanding. You say I should "tote up the revenues" and then ask "in the case of St. Louis especially, do you really want to compare their revenues with Pittsburgh's?". With these statements, you are equating market size to the ability to gather revenue. This is classic false equivocation. As anyone versed in rudimentary economics will tell you, sisyphus, market size does not determine revenue; rather, market size caps revenue.

In other words, market size sets a ceiling over which a team cannot go because of population limits. But it is up to teams to maximize their revenue within their market. That is how the Milwaukee Brewers, which reside in a market only 2/3 the size of Pittsburgh's, are able to gain enough revenue to support far higher payrolls than the Pirates. The Brewers, despite receiving less local television revenue than even the Pirates, drew more than 3 million fans in 2011 and more than 2.8 million in 2012. How? Better personnel decisions, better marketing, better team.

The point that DK makes, and that I also make, is that the Pirates are doing a lousy job of maximizing the revenue within their market. The market itself, while in the bottom tier of baseball, is comparable to the markets for teams in its division that have tasted significant success. And the last two seasons have proven that Pittsburgh, as a sports crazy town, would put "butts in seats" for even a mediocre team. I want to see the Pirates maximize their revenue within their market and rise to the level of their division competitors.

I hope you enjoyed this economic lesson. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits