Spurs: Report: Mike Trout as recognizable to americans as Kenneth Faried

[spurraider21]

ur cherry picking data points tbh... typical philo

[midnightpulp]

ur cherry picking data points tbh... typical philo

How is going by the last two Finals matchups in both leagues "cherry picking?" You know what is an actual cherry pick? Comparing a Lebron rated NBA Finals to the Royals vs. Giants. I want to see how a Pacers vs. Pelicans Finals does, but we'll never get that since the NBA is .

[Spurtacular]

Tbf, a lot of the respondents were probably confusing Fareied with eight other knappy dreadlocked nikkas.

[Chris Fall]

Physically, yes, but Mike Trout might be the greatest baseball player since Bonds..I'm a baseball fan, but I think it's strange that he can't seem to take off in the mainstream(he makes highlights and hits home runs, too, so it's not like his style is boring)

A few things about Trout. He plays for the Angels, who are a second class citizen team in LA and nationally. And since they’ve had no post season success since he’s been there, his exposure has been limited during the time of year more casual baseball fans pay attention. Playing for LA also puts many of his games on Pacific Coast time, which closes the doors to basically the entire East Coast viewership and much of the Midwest audience as well.

Now take those those factors into account and add to them the fact he’s not an endorsement . Other than Subway, I’m not sure what other products he endorses. For that matter, there aren’t a lot of MLB national endorsers in general. But I’d be curious what the Q score of a player like Bryce Harper is just to see if a big name guy on the East Coast and on a playoff team last couple years gives him more name recognition.

I think it matters. Someone like David Ortiz was extremely well known, even by the most casual of baseball fans. Big baseball market on the East Coast, post season success. And you saw him nationally in commercials.

I agree that there are few individual “commercial” names in baseball. Some of the best players in the league like Nolan Arenado, Paul Goldschmidt, Jose Ramirez are not household names at all. Non baseball fans know guys like Harper, Stanton, Judge, Kershaw. But it’s not many.

[apalisoc_9]

How is going by the last two Finals matchups in both leagues "cherry picking?" You know what is an actual cherry pick? Comparing a Lebron rated NBA Finals to the Royals vs. Giants. I want to see how a Pacers vs. Pelicans Finals does, but we'll never get that since the NBA is .

We using youtube videos now

[HarlemHeat37]

A few things about Trout. He plays for the Angels, who are a second class citizen team in LA and nationally. And since they’ve had no post season success since he’s been there, his exposure has been limited during the time of year more casual baseball fans pay attention. Playing for LA also puts many of his games on Pacific Coast time, which closes the doors to basically the entire East Coast viewership and much of the Midwest audience as well.

Now take those those factors into account and add to them the fact he’s not an endorsement . Other than Subway, I’m not sure what other products he endorses. For that matter, there aren’t a lot of MLB national endorsers in general. But I’d be curious what the Q score of a player like Bryce Harper is just to see if a big name guy on the East Coast and on a playoff team last couple years gives him more name recognition.

I think it matters. Someone like David Ortiz was extremely well known, even by the most casual of baseball fans. Big baseball market on the East Coast, post season success. And you saw him nationally in commercials.

I agree that there are few individual “commercial” names in baseball. Some of the best players in the league like Nolan Arenado, Paul Goldschmidt, Jose Ramirez are not household names at all. Non baseball fans know guys like Harper, Stanton, Judge, Kershaw. But it’s not many.

I agree about the market, I'm sure Trout would be a much bigger star even in the same state if you moved him to the Dodgers..

However, baseball wasn't always dependent on the market for star power..I'm still a fan today, but I used to be a HUGE fan when I was younger..it's not just my nostalgia speaking, MLB had more national stars in the 90s and they weren't dependent on market(obviously it still helped, somebody like Jeter was aided tremendously by playing for the Yankees, considering how boring of a personality he was)..I'd argue that they had more recognizable stars in the 90s than both the NFL and NBA during that time IMO..

I wonder what changed that made it such a regional game nowadays..

[midnightpulp]

We using youtube videos now

Using something called a "Q score" that doesn't even reveal its methodology.

Ratings, views, attendance, merchandise sales, these are the stats that matter.

[midnightpulp]

I agree about the market, I'm sure Trout would be a much bigger star even in the same state if you moved him to the Dodgers..

However, baseball wasn't always dependent on the market for star power..I'm still a fan today, but I used to be a HUGE fan when I was younger..it's not just my nostalgia speaking, MLB had more national stars in the 90s and they weren't dependent on market(obviously it still helped, somebody like Jeter was aided tremendously by playing for the Yankees, considering how boring of a personality he was)..I'd argue that they had more recognizable stars in the 90s than both the NFL and NBA during that time IMO..

I wonder what changed that made it such a regional game nowadays..

The only star who really drove national conversation back then was Griffey Jr. The Bonds/Sosa/McGwire era came a bit later, and was quickly tainted by the PED controversy. It also could be a general shift in the MLB's marketing strategy that prioritizes the regional over the national, since the latter requires more casual and bandwagoners who likely won't be long term fans when whatever element that attracted them to the league (i.e. charismatic star, dramatic storyline, etc) goes away.

As we talked about before, I think the NBA marketing strategy considers too much of the short-term. Relying on 1 or 2 once-in-a-generation superstars who have equal parts talent and charisma to carry the league is risky. When Jordan retired, interest tanked, and sent the NBA into panic mode looking for a replacement. Kobe/Lakers really didn't fit the bill, and it wasn't until 2009 Lebron (Lebron really couldn't draw before. 2007 Finals ratings were abysmal) and the fall out from the Decision that the NBA finally found some semblance of Jordan level marketability they could push. Even though the MLB doesn't generate the conversation from insipid hot take shows, I think the league is in a better position moving forward than the NBA. MLB viewing typically wins their time slot in a region. The MLB team is often a bigger draw than the NBA in a region. I would venture to say there's more eyeballs on MLB content any given night than there is on NBA content during the respective regular seasons. Players retire, storylines end. Teams can't retire.

I would also say the MLB is more age agnostic, while the NBA is focused on attracting the 12-26 demographic. Again, risky. Tastes do and will change, and I find the way the NBA markets itself insultingly childish. When LaVar Ball's antics are dominating an NBA off-season, you know you've entered TMZ territory, but the "kids" love this , I guess. Then it was followed up with the Uncle Dennis/Kawhi nonsense. I mean, Kawhi became a household name more off the controversy of this circus than anything he ever did on court

[midnightpulp]

Also, too HarlemHeat37, I think the lack of nationally loved individual stars in baseball has to do with the fact there's really no on-field accomplishment anymore that can create a "storyline." The most hallowed record in sports for a long time was the regular season home run record. McGwire obliterated it. The other big record was the all-time home run record. Bonds did that and then beat McGwire's record. Then the PED controversy happened. So now, even if a Judge, Stanton, etc makes a run at 73, people won't buy it as a legit, even if they're clean as a whistle. So that combined with the fact MLB players tend not to be attention s poses a problem for nationwide marketability. Also, it makes more sense to market around a teams. Trout is going to get the same number of at-bats as a ty player like Luis Valbuena. As I've explained, you don't watch baseball necessarily to see Trout or another individual player do his thing since they can't dominate the action.

That said, I think the route to creating baseball's next "face" will come through a two-way player like Ohtani. He was a sensation before he got hurt and was driving a good deal of national conversation, but he obviously lacks the marketability factor being Japanese and playing for the Angels. Watch out for Hunter Greene, called baseball's Lebron. 102 mph fastball and can hit. But he's getting lit up in the minors, so that might fizzle out.

[lefty]

Who the is mike trout.

Dude is a LEGEND

He is a plumber on Monday, an ice cream truck driver on Tuesday, a U.S post office employee on Wednesday, a grocery bagger on Thursday, an accountant on Friday and a Baskin Robbins employee on Saturday.
On Sunday he goes to church and watches football as he's eating hot dogs.
Lots and lots of hot dogs.

[apalisoc_9]

Also, too HarlemHeat37, I think the lack of nationally loved individual stars in baseball has to do with the fact there's really no on-field accomplishment anymore that can create a "storyline." The most hallowed record in sports for a long time was the regular season home run record. McGwire obliterated it. The other big record was the all-time home run record. Bonds did that and then beat McGwire's record. Then the PED controversy happened. So now, even if a Judge, Stanton, etc makes a run at 73, people won't buy it as a legit, even if they're clean as a whistle. So that combined with the fact MLB players tend not to be attention s poses a problem for nationwide marketability. Also, it makes more sense to market around a teams. Trout is going to get the same number of at-bats as a ty player like Luis Valbuena. As I've explained, you don't watch baseball necessarily to see Trout or another individual player do his thing since they can't dominate the action.

That said, I think the route to creating baseball's next "face" will come through a two-way player like Ohtani. He was a sensation before he got hurt and was driving a good deal of national conversation, but he obviously lacks the marketability factor being Japanese and playing for the Angels. Watch out for Hunter Greene, called baseball's Lebron. 102 mph fastball and can hit. But he's getting lit up in the minors, so that might fizzle out.

Meh.

I remeber when there was some slight buzz with darvish when he came in to the league and he never turned into a player that he was hyped up to be.

Mike trout is the greteast MLB player ive seen play. Just because ohtani cam pitch and hit, its never gonna amount to anything.

Fact is trout is a phenomenal player but he is still irrelevant

[midnightpulp]

Meh.

I remeber when there was some slight buzz with darvish when he came in to the league and he never turned into a player that he was hyped up to be.

Mike trout is the greteast MLB player ive seen play. Just because ohtani cam pitch and hit, its never gonna amount to anything.

Fact is trout is a phenomenal player but he is still irrelevant

If you have a player who can carry a 3.00ish era in the American league and hit for a .850 OPS, that'll amount to a load of wins, and it's noteworthy as a "storyline" (which idiotic modern sports fans love) because we haven't seen a great two-way baseball player in over 100 years. Ohtani might not be the guy from a marketability standpoint, but he's proving it can be done.

Trout is not irrelevant, but he's not a huge celebrity like NBA stars, which is the "issue" here. And I'm fine with that. It's disgusting how media follows around Lebron's every move and how he basically dictates the balance of power in the NBA since his individual impact is so great. No baseball player can shift the balance like that, and thus you won't get all this re ed media fawning over their every tweet and Instagram post. MLB players are replaceable, and they know it. Seasons hacking it out in minor league ball humbles your ass. If we had this Uncle Dennis/Kawhi drama on the Dodgers with Kershaw, off and good riddance. There's a prospect that can likely fill your void. Meanwhile, Kawhi's leaving will set back the Spurs for decades since everything in basketball is centered around a star or two.

NBA has turned into TMZ with a ball involved.

[BD24]

Physically, yes, but Mike Trout might be the greatest baseball player since Bonds..I'm a baseball fan, but I think it's strange that he can't seem to take off in the mainstream(he makes highlights and hits home runs, too, so it's not like his style is boring)

That’s fair. The average joe can regoznize Bonds, Sosa, Mgguire. Given that was a golden age for baseball, but still kind of odd

[Stabula]

Baseball is ing boring