I'm not debating that baseball would remain popular even if players were brought to you by some sponsor (is it too outlandish to imagine Chrysler paying $2 million to have the P.A. announcer for the next 3 years to say "Now, batting 3rd and brought to you by Chrysler the makers of the all new Pacifica, your Catcher, Ivan Rodriguez?")

My question is why do you think that the same owners who extort millions out of cities, set up illegal scalping organizations and resort to dressing fans in green t-shirts to sell seats in center field during day games would shorten the game if they were just allowed to put patches on the players' sleeves?

Maybe in the future, all TV will be commercial free, and baseball will be presented like soccer already is, but until football and/or basketball go that route, what incentive to the owners have to eliminate an already established profit source?

Dave,

I'm with you on Nader. Used to hold him in such high esteem but he's totally jumped the shark over the past few years and is talking like a loony.

Yes, it certaintly seems Ralph's all up in a tizzy over a small issue here, but I see his point. No longer do we have the starting lineup, we have the "Comcast Starting Lineup." When the Red Sox catch a runner stealing, it's a "Lowjack Lockdown" or some similarly silly thing. When hitters 3 through 5 are due up, we're entering the "Giant (Glass) Part of the Order." Then we've got the silly "Pepsi fan of the day" features which have caused networks to miss action so they can train the camera on a fan and sell another spot.

In last years playoffs Fox often missed the first batter of an inning because they needed to run an extra commercial. They even missed a leadoff homerun in the ALCS. I believe they cut back to the game with Mirabelli rounding third base. Do you remember the incessant "24" adds during the 2001 World Series?

I would say that, yes, sometimes these things DO detract from the excitement of the game. I'm willing to accept them as part of the presentation (accept in the case where they miss action). Somehow this sense is offended when the advertisements are placed on the players themselves. And as a player I wouldn't be too pleased about the idea either.

I guess these are all just symptoms of the complete and total over-commercialization of our lives.

Remember in old photos, the outfield walls were plastered with ads, just like minor-league parks are now. Even the Green Monster.

"Welcome to the Giant Eagle Smart Bomb Inning! If we raze a foreign capital before the Bucs retire the side, you win $100!"

I'm inclined to think that, apart from the crassness of the whole thing, mowing logos into the grass would probably be reasonable.

I find the idea that putting advertisements on uniforms would lead to the money-grubbing owners cutting back on other advertising quite naive.

Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile. And keep the mile they promised to give back.

No, I'll take my uniforms (and my fields) advertising-free, thank you.

The Spider-Man thing is a natural tie-in - isn't there already a big web behind home plate?

The first thing I do with my copy of the New Yorker each week is scan the table of contents to see whether Gladwell has an article.

I guess these are all just symptoms of the complete and total over-commercialization of our lives.

No; they're just a symptom of rose-colored nostalgia. They're nothing new. Remember "Hit sign, win suit"? It wasn't a charitable thing; it was advertising. Remember "Ballantine Blasts"? Three guesses which beer company was sponsoring the broadcasts.

I wonder if anyone has informed MLB that what they are doing is against the rules.

I have oft wondered about product placement and it's need. In the past, when there were three channels and commercials first started it was great for the advertisers; there was nowhere else to go, so why not sit through the commercial. Then cable came along and people would be willing to miss ten seconds of the show to avoid commercials by flipping around and the advertisers were probably less happy. Now, with the advent of TIVO, and the fastforward button it offers, I wonder how long before all advertising is product placement, and the 30 second spot is a thing of the past.

Well, not really, but I think product placement will become even more used because of all the things mentioned.

"DuPuy said Columbia Pictures originally wanted to put "Spider-Man 2" webbing on the netting behind home plate, but the request was turned down for fear it would distract players. Pitching-mound rubbers and home plate will be adorned with "Spider-Man 2" branding before games, but will be replaced with standard white plates once the games start."

I second the props on Malcolm Gladwell.

Randy Johnson? Think how much Mo Vaughn is worth! Maybe Pohland will go to an all wide-body team for the extra revenue.

I'm the same way on Gladwell. Btw, he has book coming out in 2005, which is why we haven't seen much new.

I also agree that baseball will not substitute on-field adverts for commercials; they will supplement them. Still, baseball isn't nearly as infuriating to watch (ad-wise) as the NFL: I hate it when teams score right before the end of a quarter, which means you get a post-score timeout, post-kickoff timeout, and an end of quarter timeout. Even worse is having that sequence plus an injury or a 3-and-out series to start the next quarter.

I think it's naive to think that more in-game advertising means less out-of-game advertising. All opportunities for revenue will be exploited up to - and sometimes past - the public's willingness to digest them.

Gladwell's a good writer, but his books read like magazine articles that were desperately stretched to fit into book-length formats. He should stick to the New Yorker.

I tried to email this to David, but it bounced back as "mailbox full"

First, there's a good argument that advertisements are not against the rules. "First, second and third bases shall be marked by white canvas bags" discusses only the bags. It does not discuss anything that may be printed on those white canvas bags. "The pitcher's plate shall be a rectangular slab of whitened rubber, 24..." What does whitened mean? Something less black than natural rubber? If so any printing on a white piece of rubber is "whitened". Then again, this is the same as the bag rule. The mound has a whitened piece of rubber. What is then affixed to the rubber is not discussed by the rules.

I admit the arguments try to slice the rules very thinly. But, I'm in the business of slicing rules very thinly...

As for the second point. More ads on the fields does not help the Royals against the Yankees in the battle for the dollar. I have no doubt that ads on the first base at Yankee Stadium is worth far more than the first base at Kaufmann Field (or whatever it's called nowadays). The simple truth is that every time baseball opens up a new revenue stream, the Yankees pull away from the pack even further. This phenomenon can be seen with the new stadiums. The first new stadiums were hugely effective because they created such a revenue gap between the new stadium teams and the old stadium teams. The older stadiums had to be raised just to allow the older teams to catch up.

How exactly will ads on uniforms advance parity in MLB? First, the Yankees will obviously generate far more ad revenue than the Royals. Second, the MLBPA will demand a portion of this new revenue in the form of salary increases. It'll be a continuation of the status quo. This does nothing positive for the game (finances, yes) of baseball.

The complete text of Nader's letter may be found at http://www.leagueoffans.org/uniformadvertisingletter.html. The points he makes are valid ones.

i think dave misquoted pappas there. what he actually said: "i agree 100% with ralph nader, but i'd like to take this opportunity to advance a particular agenda i have against him anyway."

about what dave's saying (and sorry if this has been said upthread): i'd rather have control over whether or not i see advertisements. intrusive advertising is offensive.

i guess i'll go blow my brains out now.

oh, also: if you think product placement will REPLACE commercials (any of them) you're one naive bastard.

erm, that wasn't directed @ dave and sounded a bit harsher than it was meant to be, apologies.

Parity? From the AP report:
The Yankees and Boston Red Sox will get more than $100,000 each, the team executive said, also on condition of anonymity. Most of the other 13 teams playing at home that weekend will get about $50,000 apiece, the team executive said.

*First, there's a good argument that advertisements are not against the rules.*

They are arguments but they're not good. They're sementic nonsense with no basis in reality. As for the first, "White" ≢ "white + other colors".

As for the second, the definition of "whitened" according to two online dictionaries is either "to turn or become white or whiter" or "having lost it's color". The first definition leads us to "white ≢" again and the second states that taking away all the color of the rubber is the only satisfactory method. Leaving color in the form of lettering or logos would be prohibited.

'As for the first, "White" ? "white + other colors"'

Agreed. Were we to take seriously the argument that the rule "does not discuss anything that may be printed on those white canvas bags" the logical conclusion would be that there could be literally anything--and I don't mean merely printing: it could be a set of moose antlers--so long as there was a white canvas bag under there somewhere. To put it another way, since when do we allow foreign objects--including printing--atop the bases?