The Instigator
JasperFrancisShickadance
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
JDC
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

MLB is becoming a business where the players get too much money and they intentionally lose.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
JDC
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 750 times Debate No: 56008
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

1st round acceptance...

Clarification: I don't WANT baseball to be like this but I'm afraid it's true. Don't get me wrong, I love the sport, but I think it was better in the 80s and 90s. Con argues that modern baseball is fine.

MLB=Major League Baseball
JDC

Con

I accept this challenge. Looking forward to an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

Thank you for accepting!

TO BEGIN. Even though I did not live in the 80s, I have watched some world series games from that time and there are many differences between baseball then and now. Watch the video. There's a different atmosphere of baseball.

One thing that's different are the spectators. On the video, watch the fans. They are so excited and loud, and not just because of the food! When I go to ball games (I live near the MN Twins stadium) I have noticed how a lot of the fans are on their devices, (1); and eating and drinking up a storm [2] (baseball stadiums are not a place to get wasted!).

A side subject: the MN Twins got a new stadium. That effects the percentage of the different people who go there now. Because of the fact that it's a new park, the fans are MOSTLY just going so they can go home and tell their friends "I just went to Target Field" and it's no longer about the team winning or losing. The only reason that fits with the subject is because (I think) the Major League Baseball business, or for that matter ANY professional sport business, should stop putting millions of dollars into newer, modern stadiums. :) It's just one thing that ruins the ambience of baseball.

THE PLAYERS. About drugs, I wouldn't say they were MORE popular in the 80s and 90s, but at that time precursors or performance enhancer drugs were not illegal in MLB...who knows who was using what at that time. But you could tell when they were over-using and abusing the drugs, and that's all that really matters.

http://mlb.mlb.com...

It was the 1920-50s when players would sometimes try to "fix" games; such as try to lose (for money or something). Do you know about Shoeless Joe Jackson? If not watch Field of Dreams (I love that movie), he was an amazing outfielder/player but he got caught in the Black Sox Scandal and was forever banned from playing in the Major Leagues. So it's not THAT big of a problem now. In fact I was wrong about the title where they intentionally lose nowadays. Let's see who catches that...what do you think?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

This website below here has a story about a pitcher who was "intentionally" throwing the ball at the batter. Conspiracies like this are dumb because now (a) the rules and managers are involved, (b) we don't know if the pitcher was doing it on purpose or not, or, (c) assuming the pitcher was doing it intentionally, that wouldn't have happened in the 1900s because it was a different ball game back then.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com...

#4 The players don't try as hard. You can tell by the work ethic we see out in the field and it takes the exciting feel out of the game. Players should have a personality that we (the fans) can talk about even out of the stadium; little things such as doing a happy dance when you're safe or you got a good hit. (The video above shows some signature players doing their signature dances!!!) Now days we have things like "walk on music" and big screens [in the stadiums] where we can see the individual players' facts and life outside baseball, but that isn't the same as the players actually SHOWING their personality on the field. Hard to explain but I think you get what I mean.

RULES. Things have changed in baseball because the mangers want to keep the game safer. My opinion is you should let the players do their thing without restrictions or extra rules that will help them be safer, because it effects each game and makes everything more boring (as if baseball isn't already kind of boring at times!).

Simple things such as this (below) drain some fun out of the ball game. The second site isn't that bad and some people think it's a good idea to keep the players safer, but the more the media and outside managers get involved, the more the game will be influenced. It think: let the players play the game! Some are forgetting that baseball's a sport. You're bound to get hurt, in fact that's one thing that makes the game more exciting.

http://mlb.mlb.com...

http://www.cleveland.com...

What do you think?! This is an interesting debate indeed.
JDC

Con

Okay, a lot to respond to here. Fist off, the proposition being debated is that "MLB is becoming a business where the players get too much money and they intentionally lose", but Pro's argument seems to focus on general complaints about MLB as opposed to the particular problems of players being overpaid and losing intentionally. Having said that, I will respond to the points that Pro has made.

"TO BEGIN. Even though I did not live in the 80s, I have watched some world series games from that time and there are many differences between baseball then and now. Watch the video. There's a different atmosphere of baseball."
This statement is difficult to dispute or agree with due to it's subjective nature. Atmosphere is a poorly defined quality, and I personally find it hard to ascertain this through a video. I was also not alive during the 80s, so obviously I did not experience these games first hand either.

"I have noticed how a lot of the fans are on their devices, (1); and eating and drinking up a storm [2] (baseball stadiums are not a place to get wasted!)."
An important point to consider here is that the devices you refer to did not exist yet in the 80s. It is entirely possible that if they did, the fans back then would have used them during games as well. I think it is unreasonable to hold the advancement of technology against the MLB. As to the point about people eating and drinking, I honestly find it hard to see as something that is unambiguously negative. Arguably, drinking and eating are part of the culture of baseball. Either way, this is very far afield from the issue of whether or not players are overpaid and lose on purpose.

"A side subject: the MN Twins got a new stadium. That effects the percentage of the different people who go there now. Because of the fact that it's a new park, the fans are MOSTLY just going so they can go home and tell their friends "I just went to Target Field" and it's no longer about the team winning or losing. The only reason that fits with the subject is because (I think) the Major League Baseball business, or for that matter ANY professional sport business, should stop putting millions of dollars into newer, modern stadiums. :) It's just one thing that ruins the ambience of baseball."
I take issue with this part because I'm not sure what exactly your alternative plan is here. Should teams continue to play in old stadiums no matter how broken down they become? Or should they build new ones when necessary, but build them cheaply so that spectators will not be excited to visit them? It appears to me that there is no obvious solution to this issue even if it is a valid issue.

"THE PLAYERS. About drugs, I wouldn't say they were MORE popular in the 80s and 90s, but at that time precursors or performance enhancer drugs were not illegal in MLB...who knows who was using what at that time. But you could tell when they were over-using and abusing the drugs, and that's all that really matters."
I'm really not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that baseball was better because drugs were not illegal and possibly being used more? You say that you could tell when drugs were being over-used and abused, but who gets to define what over-use and abuse are? Some might consider any use at all to be over-use, while others may not care at all how much is being used.

"So it's not THAT big of a problem now. In fact I was wrong about the title where they intentionally lose nowadays. Let's see who catches that...what do you think?"
If I understand this correctly you are now abandoning the intentionally losing part of the proposition, so there is no need for me to argue that point anymore. As such, I will not touch this point from now on.

"This website below here has a story about a pitcher who was "intentionally" throwing the ball at the batter. Conspiracies like this are dumb because now (a) the rules and managers are involved, (b) we don't know if the pitcher was doing it on purpose or not, or, (c) assuming the pitcher was doing it intentionally, that wouldn't have happened in the 1900s because it was a different ball game back then."
It's unclear how this story supports the proposition if by your own admission we can't tell if it is true or not. Also, you say this would not have happened in the 1900s, but before you said that game fixing was a bigger problem back then. Why would such thing be worse then but another this would be worse now.

"#4 The players don't try as hard. You can tell by the work ethic we see out in the field and it takes the exciting feel out of the game. Players should have a personality that we (the fans) can talk about even out of the stadium; little things such as doing a happy dance when you're safe or you got a good hit. (The video above shows some signature players doing their signature dances!!!) Now days we have things like "walk on music" and big screens [in the stadiums] where we can see the individual players' facts and life outside baseball, but that isn't the same as the players actually SHOWING their personality on the field. Hard to explain but I think you get what I mean."
I'm not sure that this is indicative of the players not trying as hard so much as it is of changing technology adding different things to the experience of baseball. Honestly, though, I consider players' athletic abilities to be more important than personality anyways.

"RULES. Things have changed in baseball because the mangers want to keep the game safer. My opinion is you should let the players do their thing without restrictions or extra rules that will help them be safer, because it effects each game and makes everything more boring (as if baseball isn't already kind of boring at times!)."
This is an area I disagree with you on. I think rules to keep the players safer a good thing because they prevent injuries. Injuries can keep a player out of the game for an extended period of time, which is disappointing to fans who care about specific players. They also prevent the players from gaining experience, which will make them able to play better in the long run. All in all, rules to prevent injuries make the game less exciting in the short term but keep the game going better over a longer period of time.
I agree that this debate is interesting and look forward to the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

ATMOSPHERE. The word is not finely defined (see what I did there) but right now I am associating it with the word 'ambience.' Technology, in my opinion, has control over the baseball in general and the fans are more excited about the game without the devices I have talked about.

DRUGS. As you said, "some might consider any use at all to be over-use, while others may not care at all how much is being used." You are right it is far from the topic and so I will discontinue talking about the use of drugs in MLB as neither of us find it appropriate.

I see your point of view and I guess I wrote the title for this debate a little too quickly! Sorry for the misunderstanding and weird statements I gave in Round 2...it was late. Besides correcting myself a bit, I will rebut some of the things you said (as we obviously have different views on the game of baseball).

But let us not limit our talk to only 'intentionally losing and overly paid,' because this is more so a debate about "how baseball is changing."

#4 is me trying to tell you how I believe that personalities for the players, in the game of baseball, adds a touch of interactive-ness with the fans so that when we go to a baseball stadium/game it's different than just watching them on a screen; the players can actually express their emotions and SHARE them with the spectators.

STADIUMS. The word "old" is misused when put together with "stadium." When you replace a stadium for a major league team you not only have to spend a TON of money when it could be used on other things, but also regain special memories. For example, when Target Field was built I was sad because I had remembered a lot of good times at the Metrodome. Do we want new stadiums because the present ones aren't up to date in technology and trends? I don't think most stadiums, when rebuilt, are literally crumbling. Also I believe that MLB should invest more money into actual good players instead of stadiums because, if you know how bad a year the MN Twins are having, you'd know how I feel about wanting better players (not a new stadium)...!

RULES. "I think rules to keep the payers safer a good thing because they prevent injuries." Well I, personally, think baseball is more exciting when the maximum effort is spent--the players NOT having to worry about safety rules. Besides, getting hurt is part of the game! Players get paid so much money for playing single games that injuries are taken care of. Baseball is a form of entertainment, we don't want it to be a business, so lets keep it that way!
Sorry this took so long.
JDC

Con

First of all, I would like to say that there is no need for pro to apologize for taking time in posting this. I didn't post my last arguments until less than an hour before they were due. I am also cutting it a little close this round, so I think it makes sense for us to be mutually understanding on this matter.

"ATMOSPHERE. The word is not finely defined (see what I did there) but right now I am associating it with the word 'ambience.' Technology, in my opinion, has control over the baseball in general and the fans are more excited about the game without the devices I have talked about."
I think that ambiance may honestly be about as ill-defined as atmosphere, so I'm not sure what this word change accomplishes. It's an interesting question whether or not fans would be more excited without their devices. After all, people have the option to either turn them off or leave them at home, so in the absence of any constraints that force them to use devices one must assume they are using them because they prefer to use them.
"DRUGS. As you said, "some might consider any use at all to be over-use, while others may not care at all how much is being used." You are right it is far from the topic and so I will discontinue talking about the use of drugs in MLB as neither of us find it appropriate."
Agreed.
"I see your point of view and I guess I wrote the title for this debate a little too quickly! Sorry for the misunderstanding and weird statements I gave in Round 2...it was late. Besides correcting myself a bit, I will rebut some of the things you said (as we obviously have different views on the game of baseball)."
Understood.
"But let us not limit our talk to only 'intentionally losing and overly paid,' because this is more so a debate about "how baseball is changing.""
Okay, so I suppose that in this case Pro would be that baseball is changing for the worse and Con would be that it's not.
"#4 is me trying to tell you how I believe that personalities for the players, in the game of baseball, adds a touch of interactive-ness with the fans so that when we go to a baseball stadium/game it's different than just watching them on a screen; the players can actually express their emotions and SHARE them with the spectators."
Like much of this debate, this part is highly subjective. Many spectators may care more about the athletic aspects of the game and will derive the emotional component more from whether their favourite team is winning or losing.

"STADIUMS. The word "old" is misused when put together with "stadium." When you replace a stadium for a major league team you not only have to spend a TON of money when it could be used on other things, but also regain special memories. For example, when Target Field was built I was sad because I had remembered a lot of good times at the Metrodome. Do we want new stadiums because the present ones aren't up to date in technology and trends? I don't think most stadiums, when rebuilt, are literally crumbling. Also I believe that MLB should invest more money into actual good players instead of stadiums because, if you know how bad a year the MN Twins are having, you'd know how I feel about wanting better players (not a new stadium)...!"
I certainly can understand that memories can be an important part of the experience, but the memories continue to exist in one's mind even after the stadium is gone. Also, one can make new memories at the new stadium, so in the long run it should all be okay. It's true that many stadiums may not be crumbling at the time when are replaced, but they will be eventually so replacement must come at one time or another. Also, are we sure that spending more money always leads to better players? It is possible that we might just end up spending more money on the same players.

"RULES. "I think rules to keep the payers safer a good thing because they prevent injuries." Well I, personally, think baseball is more exciting when the maximum effort is spent--the players NOT having to worry about safety rules. Besides, getting hurt is part of the game! Players get paid so much money for playing single games that injuries are taken care of. Baseball is a form of entertainment, we don't want it to be a business, so lets keep it that way!"
Again, we have run into a matter that is highly subjective. I think baseball is most exciting when all the best players are on the field playing instead of off of it recovering from injuries. I also disagree that entertainment and business are mutually exclusive. After all, surely everyone has heard of show business.
I look forward to the final round of debate.
Debate Round No. 3
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

Here are the definitions of some words...I don't know why I didn't do this earlier!!
http://www.google.com...
http://www.google.com...

So I guess my point is that, BECAUSE we have the option of turning our devices off or leaving them home, the experience of the game is different for everybody as it distracts and puts your mind on other places and stuff. Technology was not as amazing and popular back then, so I propose that this gave an advantage to the amazingness and popularity of baseball!

"Okay, so I suppose that in this case Pro would be that baseball is changing for the worse and Con would be that it's not." Correct.

"Many spectators may care more about the athletic aspects of the game and will derive the emotional component more from whether their favourite team is winning or losing." Well said. I agree with you but I think this goes along with my view of the 'ambience of baseball,' as watching a player get excited about his OWN team winning is fun to see, especially in person, away from a TV. Baseball is more than winning and losing. To me it's a game of strategy and, when you win, you know it's because you worked hard to earn it. If the all the players weren't doing it for money, and just for the love of the game, we'd see more personality AND effort.

From STADIUMS topic... "...Also, are we sure that spending more money always leads to better players? It is possible that we might just end up spending more money on the same players." Oooh, snap, I never thought of that! But still I'd rather spend money on the actual players and their improvements/health rather than the object that they play in, that, in my opinion, is just another attraction to make MORE money for MLB business.

From RULES topic... "I think baseball is most exciting when all the best players are on the field playing instead of off of it recovering from injuries. I also disagree that entertainment and business are mutually exclusive. After all, surely everyone has heard of show business." This is where two different opinions come in, and that's where this gets fun and exciting! I respect the way you think of the players yet I think differently.
I think baseball is more fun to watch when the players can play to the very BEST of their ability. In the 80s there were strategies for world series that preserved the...pitchers, for example, so that they could pitch at the right time their coach wanted them to, planning to avoid the injuries that don't allow them to play their game. That's the kind of thing I mean by "getting hurt is part of baseball." I think teams should learn to play AROUND the risk, and plan accordingly so as to fit the environment of playing without dumb rules.

I'm not saying entertainment and business are the same, and that's not all that MLB is either. I think that baseball is not only entertainment, but a SPORT in which real people play in for our enjoyment, thus there should be a different connotation with baseball--not just entertainment and business, but sport. Not just experience and money, but interaction. Let's pay at the gates and know that the money will go towards making the game better. Knowing that the business is being used for the better good of the entertainment so that the sport may succeed.

Baseball has become different, technologically and authority-wise (rule setting, where the money goes, etc.) and some people like it that way while others disagree. I don't blame baseball for having to adapt to this culture's trends and I can't do anything about either of the ways I stated baseball is changing, but it sure is fun to debate about it! My point, which I hope got across to everyone, is that major league baseball has ups and downs going for it and the game is not the same as it was a decade ago. But I suppose I should go along with it, just wait and see what happens, because baseball is a great sport to me no matter what!

I hope I didn't miss anything. Thanks for an awesome debate.
JDC

Con

"Here are the definitions of some words...I don't know why I didn't do this earlier!!"
Thanks, I do find these very helpful.

"So I guess my point is that, BECAUSE we have the option of turning our devices off or leaving them home, the experience of the game is different for everybody as it distracts and puts your mind on other places and stuff. Technology was not as amazing and popular back then, so I propose that this gave an advantage to the amazingness and popularity of baseball!"
Interesting. I suppose the only response to this is to say that it's more a matter of society itself changing than baseball changing. That is, technology is distracting people from everything these days, not just baseball.

"Oooh, snap, I never thought of that! But still I'd rather spend money on the actual players and their improvements/health rather than the object that they play in, that, in my opinion, is just another attraction to make MORE money for MLB business."
So, like much of this issue, it comes down to a matter of personal preference. Personally, I don't really care about where the money is going unless taking one option over another produces tangible results.

"I think baseball is more fun to watch when the players can play to the very BEST of their ability. In the 80s there were strategies for world series that preserved the...pitchers, for example, so that they could pitch at the right time their coach wanted them to, planning to avoid the injuries that don't allow them to play their game. That's the kind of thing I mean by "getting hurt is part of baseball." I think teams should learn to play AROUND the risk, and plan accordingly so as to fit the environment of playing without dumb rules."
Again, if it's just a matter of preference, it really can't be debated any further.

"I'm not saying entertainment and business are the same, and that's not all that MLB is either. I think that baseball is not only entertainment, but a SPORT in which real people play in for our enjoyment, thus there should be a different connotation with baseball--not just entertainment and business, but sport. Not just experience and money, but interaction. Let's pay at the gates and know that the money will go towards making the game better. Knowing that the business is being used for the better good of the entertainment so that the sport may succeed."
I do agree that MLB can in principle be a sport as well as entertainment and a business. I'm just not sure that it has been proven that the business element is currently overtaking the sport element. All in all, I think it is difficult to prove this pont one way or another.

I would like to thank my opponent for this fascinating and spirited debate, and I will add that I hope all those reading it enjoyed it as well.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 3 years ago
Phoenix61397
JasperFrancisShickadanceJDCTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: The only one to source anything was pro, but I feel pro's arguments were a bit weak and subjective. Con won overall.