Public Policy Polling (May 2016): Only 25% of baseball fans prefer DH baseball

[_sturt_]

...down from 33% in 2015.

65% prefer the traditional game.

(How did I, of all people, miss this? ...must be slacking.)

PPP, incidentally, is one of the more respected social science polling firms out there.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_51216.pdf



Amazingly perhaps to some, unlike the other side, I hear practically none of us calling for MLB HQ to impose on the AL the abolition of the DH.

Some of us, it seems, respect the fact that different people can prefer different styles of play, and no one should have a top-down mandate compel them to never again see their favored form of the game.

Home Manager Chooses, of course, would pretty much end that whole discussion forever more... and make the World Series a scientifically-valid test of which team is best rather than which form of the game is more likely to yield a team that wins 4 games more quickly than the other.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/big-idea-the-designated-hitter-compromise/
http://www.facebook.com/UnifyBaseball

[Mathguy]

So does that mean there could just be more NL fans ?

...down from 33% in 2015.

65% prefer the traditional game.

(How did I, of all people, miss this? ...must be slacking.)

PPP, incidentally, is one of the more respected social science polling firms out there.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_51216.pdf

(Image removed from quote.)

Amazingly perhaps to some, unlike the other side, I hear practically none of us calling for MLB HQ to impose on the AL the abolition of the DH.

Some of us, it seems, respect the fact that different people can prefer different styles of play, and no one should have a top-down mandate compel them to never again see their favored form of the game.

Home Manager Chooses, of course, would pretty much end that whole discussion forever more... and make the World Series a scientifically-valid test of which team is best rather than which form of the game is more likely to yield a team that wins 4 games more quickly than the other.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/big-idea-the-designated-hitter-compromise/
http://www.facebook.com/UnifyBaseball

[OldChelsea]

May the DH be someday consigned to the scrap-heap of history.

[_sturt_]

So does that mean there could just be more NL fans ?

Am I to take it that you're assuming all NL fans prefer the traditional game and that all AL fans prefer the DH game, and thus, this poll just bears out that the NL fans outnumber the AL fans by about 65 to 25?

Dunno. That's a hard sell from where I sit.

Adding to this line of thinking, I've cited in some of my previous discussions (here or elsewhere) unscientific online polls that, nonetheless, cater specifically to Boston Red Sox fans (ie, posted by their local media)... that last year and the year before that showed that the majority of (presumably Red Sox) fans were NOT in favor of the DH game. Here's one of those:



http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/04/28/poll-should-national-league-adopt-the-designated-hitter/

[_sturt_]

May the DH be someday consigned to the scrap-heap of history.

Yes. Agreed.

But then... again out of respect to those who like that form of the game and taking a golden rule kind-of perspective (ie, I wouldn't want DH fans to be able bulldoze over top of my want to watch the strategic traditional game in the event that some day their DH game became more popular than what I like)... and too, given the point that the DH is ubiquitous at lower levels down to Little League... and three, the DH has been with us for 40 years, and it's what too many people are used to... 

Pragmatically you can't do any better than to embrace Home Manager Chooses.

No top-down mandate from MLB HQ, and let the managers' own inclinations (ie, as to which match-ups most favor their self-interest in winning) determine on a game to game basis which form of play is to be used... already in-use in spring training... and could be implemented tomorrow if Manfred, owners and union got in a room and agreed to go with it.

[Mathguy]

I'm not so sure about that.  The DH was started when MLB had an attendance problem - the late 60's and early 70's produced alot of low scoring games.  It was thought more offense would bring fans back to the ballpark and it seemed to work.  Of course, there were other sociological factors influencing the rise in attendance, such as people moving back into the cities.

May the DH be someday consigned to the scrap-heap of history.

[_sturt_]

Patently ridiculous for Manfred to drop hints as he has that making the DH universal for both leagues is a consideration. Mind you, there's bound to be some degree of error in these numbers, but even having said that, they're pretty overwhelming to any such talk. Two years in a row, this poll has shown the DH is in the neighborhood of 50% less popular than traditional ball.

[Natsinpwc]

The question is not what fans prefer but would it make any difference if the DH was extended to the NL. I prefer the pitcher hitting but would not stop watching if it came. Seems inevitable given the DH in all the minor leagues.

[_sturt_]

You wouldn't.

I would.

Remove the strategic element like that, and to me, I'd be just a little more interested in major league baseball than watching the local softball league or the pro bowlers' tour.

Might as well say "the question is not who voters prefer, but could they stand Candidate X for president if s/he won"...

Pardon the opinion, but to me that's just a hollow attempt at reframing at worst, or a hollow pursuit in overthinking at best...

And to this "inevitable" thing... I've heard that for decades now. Literally. You're obviously not the first to suggest that, and yet, here we are.

Why it hasn't happened can be answered in the fact that baseball is more than just entertainment, it's a business. And business people are big on self-interest... and thus, they prefer to avoid decisions that are unnecessary when that decision holds a greater potential to slice off some of the customer base than to add to it... whether it actually would can be debated, but it doesn't matter... the very fact that that potential is there is enough. Business rule of thumb is that it's always harder to find new customers than to keep making money off the customers you've got.

And yes, so here we... still... are.

[Natsinpwc]

You wouldn't.

I would.

Remove the strategic element like that, and to me, I'd be just a little more interested in major league baseball than watching the local softball league or the pro bowlers' tour.

Might as well say "the question is not who voters prefer, but could they stand Candidate X for president if s/he won"...

Pardon the opinion, but to me that's just a hollow attempt at reframing at worst, or a hollow pursuit in overthinking at best...

And to this "inevitable" thing... I've heard that for decades now. Literally. You're obviously not the first to suggest that, and yet, here we are.

Why it hasn't happened can be answered in the fact that baseball is more than just entertainment, it's a business. And business people are big on self-interest... and thus, they prefer to avoid decisions that are unnecessary when that decision holds a greater potential to slice off some of the customer base than to add to it... whether it actually would can be debated, but it doesn't matter... the very fact that that potential is there is enough. Business rule of thumb is that it's always harder to find new customers than to keep making money off the customers you've got.

And yes, so here we... still... are.

To each his or her own.

[_sturt_]

Right. Agreed.

Which is the essence of Home Manager Chooses.

[Natsinpwc]

Right. Agreed.

Which is the essence of Home Manager Chooses.

Don't get me wrong. I like the pitcher batting. It's what I grew up watching. Just wouldn't make enough of a difference to me watching games.

[_sturt_]

Yeah... I get that. Both of us have ample company in that way.

I just think it's a big testimony to how MLB HQ has been so good at shielding attention from the incongruity of their championship all this time, first, and second, to how disrespectful fans can be toward other fans whose idea of entertainment is a bit different from their own.

[_sturt_]

Anticipating we'll learn something slightly but not significantly different this month, assuming they continue to do the same question they did for 2015 and 2016.

[Minty Fresh]

One study.  One poll.  I think the scientific process hasn't been fulfilled here.

If you look hard enough there are polls out there where climate change is a hoax and vaccines cause autism.

[_sturt_]

I don't disagree with that. And if one could tear in to some of the details of the methodology, maybe there'd be some additional ammunition there for the pro-DH types that doesn't show up in just seeing the results. Maybe.

What's compelling here, though, is that PPP is not some fly-by-night... they've been one of the staples of political research for decades, and they occasionally branch out and do some other things. They're widely regarded as knowing what they're doing, and so much so, that companies, foundations and other organizations pay them big money to do what they do and answer questions they want answered.

And what might be more compelling is that this is longitudinal in nature.... so, it's not like a one time thing that might be a one-off.

Rather, we have a 2015 poll that showed a large preference for the DH-less game.

And truly, no joshing, I thought to myself, "Just wait until they do that question again... it'll come back toward 50%, and maybe in a big way."

Didn't anticipate that they'd turn around and ask again one year later, and so I only discovered it a few months ago... but more didn't anticipate how wrong I'd be, and that, to the contrary, the 2016 polling would show an increase, not a decrease, for favoring pitchers batting.

[Minty Fresh]

But it's the "who they are polling" that really matters.  With all sports moving towards a business model where you can watch from anywhere, anytime on any device you have to reach everyone possible.  Baseball has a long tradition of kowtowing to its base fans and failing to reach younger fans.  My guess is that PPP reached out to people who consider themselves "baseball fans" of at least a moderate amount of devotion.  Those aren't the people they need to market the game to. 

What also needs to be factored in is that while the support for the DH has waned, so have ratings; so has attendance.  Less and less people are watching baseball now and it's only getting smaller.  Those polled for the DH question are likely to be the people in those dwindling numbers of fans.

[_sturt_]

But it's the "who they are polling" that really matters.  With all sports moving towards a business model where you can watch from anywhere, anytime on any device you have to reach everyone possible.  Baseball has a long tradition of kowtowing to its base fans and failing to reach younger fans.  My guess is that PPP reached out to people who consider themselves "baseball fans" of at least a moderate amount of devotion.  Those aren't the people they need to market the game to. 

What also needs to be factored in is that while the support for the DH has waned, so have ratings; so has attendance.  Less and less people are watching baseball now and it's only getting smaller.  Those polled for the DH question are likely to be the people in those dwindling numbers of fans.

I'm open to all that you just said. Really, I am.

As long as you truly grasp/embrace/accept the implications of the words in red. I'm not immediately sure that you do. Sounds like you might consider it more than just "a guess." Sounds like. Hope I'm wrong.

(And for the record, I already concurred with most of this when I said what I said about the methodology above.)

[UMDNats]

I would bet my generation is much, much more pro-DH than anyone 40+.

I personally would rather see a professional hitter bat than a pitcher who hasn't held a bat since high school.

[Minty Fresh]

I would bet my generation is much, much more pro-DH than anyone 40+.

I personally would rather see a professional hitter bat than a pitcher who hasn't held a bat since high school.

Actually, judging by my kids' friends and those of my nephew who is in college - they don't care much for baseball at all.

[Minty Fresh]

I'm open to all that you just said. Really, I am.

As long as you truly grasp/embrace/accept the implications of the words in red. I'm not immediately sure that you do. Sounds like you might consider it more than just "a guess." Sounds like. Hope I'm wrong.

(And for the record, I already concurred with most of this when I said what I said about the methodology above.)

It's a fairly well educated "guess" then because most people under 30 can't be bothered with the sport at all, let alone whether or not the DH is good for it.

[UMDNats]

Actually, judging by my kids' friends and those of my nephew who is in college - they don't care much for baseball at all.

Also true.

[mitlen]

Actually, judging by my kids' friends and those of my nephew who is in college - they don't care much for baseball at all.

Also true.

Keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeriste I thought it was just my son.

[_sturt_]

Disappointing that people appear to be so predisposed to thinking that what they have observed in their community and how they've interpreted what they've see among friends and family is, on its own, enough to extrapolate what everyone else thinks and does, and thus, enough to extrapolate what's going on in the macro.

Anticipating a remark about condescension as a follow-up... um... is it more condescending to think and admit I don't know it all and to say I need more information before I can offer a stronger conclusion, or more condescending to think and say, no, I am able to provide for you, just on the basis of my personal observation, fairly precise and exceptionally strong conclusions?

If I may... just one man's opinion... but I tend to think the more humble and more rational and more grounded perspective is to be less reliant on personal (anecdotal, by definition, and largely subjective) observation.

[MarquisDeSade]

Disappointing that people appear to be so predisposed to thinking that what they have observed in their community and how they've interpreted what they've see among friends and family is, on its own, enough to extrapolate what everyone else thinks and does, and thus, enough to extrapolate what's going on in the macro.

Anticipating a remark about condescension as a follow-up... um... is it more condescending to think and admit I don't know it all and to say I need more information before I can offer a stronger conclusion, or more condescending to think and say, no, I am able to provide for you, just on the basis of my personal observation, fairly precise and exceptionally strong conclusions?

If I may... just one man's opinion... but I tend to think the more humble and more rational and more grounded perspective is to be less reliant on personal (anecdotal, by definition, and largely subjective) observation.

You sound like someone that needs to have a couple of plates down at the 9MM Cafe.