The future of baseball...

If so, they didn't stop coming to the games, per this report on the 2005-06 season:

I don't think you can label modern major-league baseball a failure. There are some things that MLB does well, and others that they do not so well. For instance, I think they are a long way ahead in using the Internet: I'm not aware of anything like mlb.tv which is available in the other sports. As high-speed Internet connections become the standard method of delivering all entertainment to residences, this will give them a big advantage over the other alternatives.

On the other hand, they've botched the whole steroids thing dreadfully, and this has led to the general public being very cynical about almost anyone who hits a homerun. [So far, however, this doesn't appears to have spread to other areas, such as pitchers] The blame for this, incidentally, lies about equally with the union and Bud Selig as far as I can see: the former for dragging their feet, the latter for not pushing them nearly hard enough. I don't quite reckon the fix is in, with regard to Congress, but I think MLB would be very happy if Sosa, Bonds, etc. were to retire before anything really incriminating came out, so they can tout the next generation of "clean" stars instead such as Pujols.

Though 'clean' is probably relative: given a performance-enhancing drug such as HGH was available, which you knew they weren't even testing for, wouldn't you be tempted to take it? If I was the commissioner, I'd be saying, "Ok, we can't test now, but we're going to take samples and preserve them until there is a test. If those come out positive then, we'll punish you accordingly, even if you're no longer juiced." That would be, at least, more pro-active then throwing hands in the air and letting whoever wants to, use the stuff.

It's always going to be a difficult tightrope to walk; how do we attract a new generation of fans - an essential task, I think we all agree - without compromising the basic nature of it? I saw one interesting approach the other day: a math textbook which used fantasy baseball as a means of teaching arithmetic. [I'm hopefully going to interview the writer later this week] That seems a great means of getting young people interested in the game, without resorting to the flashy MTV techniques which annoy the hell out of those of us with an attention span greater than a goldfish.

I think getting baseball back into the urban areas is another essential task. There are some good programs working on this already, but part of the problem is that a baseball game requires much more equipment than a basketball one, say. Though nowhere near as much as a football game, and that still seems to carry a lot of popularity in the inner cities. [Go through the grim streets of Oakland, and compare how many Raiders shirts you'll see to A's ones, for instance]

[ People are/will get sick of the cheating, unfairness, and player selfishness. This is why other sports are becoming more attractive entertainment options. ]

I definitely would argue that baseball is far from being alone in dealing with any of these issues. Everywhere in life, the higher the stakes, the greater the temptation to bend the rules in order to get the rewards. I don't regard the NBA, NHL, NFL or NASCAR as paragons of virtue or, indeed, significantly better than baseball in the areas you mention. Indeed, I don't really think any of them are particularly new either, just more likely to be publicized, due to the high focus players are now under. Back in "the good old days," Ty Cobb could climb into the stands, assault a crippled spectator and, basically, get away with it. Now, such an incident would be posted on YouTube within five minutes, and his career would be over.

As shoewizard mentioned, the current approach of MLB seems to be to encourage a core audience who are devoted to baseball, rather than a broader-based, but more casual interest. This makes sense, in that the hardcore fans will come to games, buy jerseys, and so on. Actually, you can see a similar strategy - and one that works very nicely - in the WWE. 95% of the population couldn't care less about it; but the 5% who care are fanatical, and those are the ones who guide the business. As the competition for leisure dollars increases, you'll probably see more catering to the hardcore fans. And as one of them, I don't mind too much!

Professional baseball will be 168 years old, if we accept that the Reds were the first in 1869.  That's a pretty long time, and "glory years" where in a time largely without competition for the sports dollar and attention.  Now we have NBA, NFL, NHL, MLS, WNBA, Lacrosse leagues, NASCAR, IHL, and et cetera to compete for the attention of people, as well as many other entertainment options such as movies, concerts, amusement parks, television.

Let's face it, there always is a possibility that MLB could decline very sharply simply because there is so much else to do, and I don't think I would be shocked.

On the other hand, this link shows something interesting:

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/2000-03attendance.htm

Attendance slid to 2003, and has been on the rise ever since.  I also read an article that this year there is anticipation of even more people as the season tickets overall are up.  So even though I do agree with biggerunit1 and feel that the decline is likely in the face of all the competition (plus the usual complaints of too boring, too long, too expensive for good seats per games able to watch, the rich get richer [Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs] and the poor get poorer [seemingly everyone else]), right now the evidence by attendance alone seems to indicate otherwise.  

It will be interesting see how this plays out within the next decade.

biggerunit1 then asked what I thought about the steroids problem, and I said:

That's a funny subject.  There is a revelation that there are baseball players use performance enhancing drugs and everyone freaks out.  Largely B-Level talent (with the exception of a few) get caught and the hysteria goes higher.  Yet football is allowed to largely get away with because they seemingly had a better policy.  No one seemingly blinked an eye when Shawn Merriman was suspended for steroids, instead going to the Pro Bowl.

Baseball strikes in 94 and there is seemingly near riots, and people still talk about it, yet how often do people talk about the NFL strike in 87?  Only when they're mentioning that cheezy Keanu Reeves movie?

I don't really have an answer why there is a such a difference in attitudes between the two sports, even when they share some fans.  Perhaps it is because baseball has more of the illusion that is built on tradition and trust, and to have that yanked away is like seeing Mickey Mouse take off his head at Disneyland.  You know everything isn't what it seems but maybe people would rather live a lie that baseball harkens back to the "good ole days."

Perhaps baseball fans, though fewer than football fans, are more passionate about keeping the traditions and honor alive than football fans?  Perhaps because seemingly most of the major sports writers are baseball writers or have a baseball past, and so they feel the need to protect it more?  Perhaps its because people still look at baseball as America's pastime, America's sport, even if it isn't the most popular anymore.

Or perhaps it is none of these, it's sad news either way.

Jim mentioned that baseball must still be a viable interest as the attendance continues to go up, especially in the largest markets, but on the other hand Jim mentions that NHL had a strike and attendance went up, yet I think it would be hard for one to make a claim that the NHL is very healthy right now.

I'm not comparing the MLB and NHL, just showing that a rise in attendance doesn't necessarily indicate that there is a rise in interest.  

After all that, though, I do believe that there will always be professional baseball as long as people like the game.  I do believe there will come a point that people will stop playing this sport and develop another, but that time may be far off in the future, long after we're all pushing up the tulips.

That's both a strength and a weakness, in that its participants are held to a higher standard, perhaps, than those in other sports. But it also means its position is probably more secure in the national psyche. Baseball, Mom and apple-pie. I think there is a likely narrowing of focus, in much the same way that we'll never again see national TV spectacles in the sense of, say, the Apollo Moon landings, who shot JR, or the final episode of MASH. There are just too many channels, and so it is with leisure pursuits.

Another possible factor comes to mind. Previously, you had to root for the local team, because they were the only ones you could follow in more than the box-scores. Now, with Direct TV and the Internet, you can be a fan of a team, regardless of where you are: as our map shows! Which isn't a bad thing, as such, but it may dilute the intensity of the average fan in the home market, since loyalties are now as easily transportable as pot-plants.