luxury watches for less image
Q. Everyone is entitled to own opinions.
If you said the game of baseball has been less successful after the 1994-95, what did you like about the game better than where's it's at today?
If you think it's been more successful, what do you like better about today's game compared to the events before the strike?
I need some insight on this because it was an infamous event. But at the time the strike occurred, I was a little kid and didn't understand what was going on.
If you said the game of baseball has been less successful after the 1994-95, what did you like about the game better than where's it's at today?
If you think it's been more successful, what do you like better about today's game compared to the events before the strike?
I need some insight on this because it was an infamous event. But at the time the strike occurred, I was a little kid and didn't understand what was going on.
Answer
Much depends upon what are the defined success metrics.
Revenue is WAY up.
Attendance set a record in 2007, just under 80 million tickets, and while seasons since have dipped a bit, that's as easily explicable by the economy at large than by any meaningful loss of baseball's popularity.
The wave of new parks has continued unabated. (It's only running out of steam because there's only two teams left that really want a new yard.)
There's been two more teams added since the strike.
The expanded postseason and interleague play appear to be maintaining their popularity.
Asian talent, while still barely a trickle, is now established.
TV ratings -- man, I do NOT comprehend why anyone outside of the television industry gives a damn about these things. The entertainment market has been massively fragmented over the past 15 years ("World Wide Web" was barely an infant in '94) -- there are more channels, more programming, and more semi-good programming at that, than ever before; plus television technology has disseminated to many more outlets. The result -- more eyeballs are watching baseball (or anything, really) than ever, but the percentage or points allotted to those eyeballs are smaller because the whole pie grew faster than just the MLB segment. This is not being a problem. Goodness, we now have MLB NETWORK!
Not to be overlooked, there is now a comprehensive steroids policy in place, which appears to be working.
And -- this one, to me, is a critical point -- the 1994-95 nuclear winter taught baseball's powers-that-be an important lesson which has not been forgotten. Hence, the subsequent CBA negotiations, in 2002 and 2007, came and went without work stoppages, and largely without contention or rancor. And early signs are that the 2011 renewal will similarly go smoothly. This has been a VERY GOOD thing.
Consequent with those CBAs since the strike, MLB also has effectual revenue sharing and a functional payroll luxury tax. No team has gone bankrupt (except on paper, as legal maneuvers; no one is out of business). Of the 30 teams today, only four teams have not been to the postseason since the strike -- but there's no helping some franchises.
Overall, yes, I'd say Major League Baseball is more successful now than before the strike. Painful as it was, it did propagate short- and long-term positive effects.
Things could be better, but they are not at all bad.
And for those who simply want to lay curses upon all houses of blame, note that Fehr no longer runs the union, and Selig claims he'll really retire in 2012. So the primary actors, or at least the front men, will soon pass into history.
Much depends upon what are the defined success metrics.
Revenue is WAY up.
Attendance set a record in 2007, just under 80 million tickets, and while seasons since have dipped a bit, that's as easily explicable by the economy at large than by any meaningful loss of baseball's popularity.
The wave of new parks has continued unabated. (It's only running out of steam because there's only two teams left that really want a new yard.)
There's been two more teams added since the strike.
The expanded postseason and interleague play appear to be maintaining their popularity.
Asian talent, while still barely a trickle, is now established.
TV ratings -- man, I do NOT comprehend why anyone outside of the television industry gives a damn about these things. The entertainment market has been massively fragmented over the past 15 years ("World Wide Web" was barely an infant in '94) -- there are more channels, more programming, and more semi-good programming at that, than ever before; plus television technology has disseminated to many more outlets. The result -- more eyeballs are watching baseball (or anything, really) than ever, but the percentage or points allotted to those eyeballs are smaller because the whole pie grew faster than just the MLB segment. This is not being a problem. Goodness, we now have MLB NETWORK!
Not to be overlooked, there is now a comprehensive steroids policy in place, which appears to be working.
And -- this one, to me, is a critical point -- the 1994-95 nuclear winter taught baseball's powers-that-be an important lesson which has not been forgotten. Hence, the subsequent CBA negotiations, in 2002 and 2007, came and went without work stoppages, and largely without contention or rancor. And early signs are that the 2011 renewal will similarly go smoothly. This has been a VERY GOOD thing.
Consequent with those CBAs since the strike, MLB also has effectual revenue sharing and a functional payroll luxury tax. No team has gone bankrupt (except on paper, as legal maneuvers; no one is out of business). Of the 30 teams today, only four teams have not been to the postseason since the strike -- but there's no helping some franchises.
Overall, yes, I'd say Major League Baseball is more successful now than before the strike. Painful as it was, it did propagate short- and long-term positive effects.
Things could be better, but they are not at all bad.
And for those who simply want to lay curses upon all houses of blame, note that Fehr no longer runs the union, and Selig claims he'll really retire in 2012. So the primary actors, or at least the front men, will soon pass into history.
What is the difference between low-cost digital projectors and expensive ones?
2kool4u
I mean in terms of picture quality, reliability etc. I want to get a projector to watch DVDs at home but I don't wanna get a useless one or else an expensive one that gives me stuff I don't really need. Thanks.
Answer
What's the difference between a budget and luxury car? Both will take you where you want to go.
Many things go into a digital projector. Like cars the differences can be subtle.
Better projectors will use better components -- better optics, better video processors, better LCD or DLP panels/chips, etc. There will be better thought out design resulting in superior cooling, quieter fans, higher contrast ratio, less light leakage, more user friendly menu structure, etc. A third difference is in extra features, like zoom lens range, horizontal and/or vertical offset adjustment, connectivity options.
But -- as with cars -- more expensive doesn't necessarily give better dependability or performance.
The cost of projectors -- particularly 1080p models -- has decreased greatly in the last couple of years (See the link for a comment on this). A 1080p projector can be purchased for under $2000, even less than some 720p projectors.
There are compromises on the lower priced models within a resolution class ... not quite as good sharpness, not quite the same contrast ratio, a bit less capable video processing, etc. ... but most still represent great value for the money.
If I were buying today I'd be looking at 1080p projectors simply because projectors are the only HDTV capable device where 1080p is ALWAYS a benefit (See Link 2 for why). And the price differential between a 720p and 1080p model has dropped to $1000 or less. If 1080p is still too rich for you, the 720p category has some great choices too (I have a 720p model and am not rushing to replace it any time soon).
That said, there are differences between the projectors in each resolution class (the only fair way to differentiat). The most obvious is in the technical basis for the projector -- LCD, DLP, LCoS -- and in the degree of mounting flexibility (zoom lens range, offset capability).
Past that I highly recommend reading detailed reviews .. particulalry comparative reviews where differences between models are specifically identified ... at the two sites at the links below (3rd and 4th link)
Hope this helps.
What's the difference between a budget and luxury car? Both will take you where you want to go.
Many things go into a digital projector. Like cars the differences can be subtle.
Better projectors will use better components -- better optics, better video processors, better LCD or DLP panels/chips, etc. There will be better thought out design resulting in superior cooling, quieter fans, higher contrast ratio, less light leakage, more user friendly menu structure, etc. A third difference is in extra features, like zoom lens range, horizontal and/or vertical offset adjustment, connectivity options.
But -- as with cars -- more expensive doesn't necessarily give better dependability or performance.
The cost of projectors -- particularly 1080p models -- has decreased greatly in the last couple of years (See the link for a comment on this). A 1080p projector can be purchased for under $2000, even less than some 720p projectors.
There are compromises on the lower priced models within a resolution class ... not quite as good sharpness, not quite the same contrast ratio, a bit less capable video processing, etc. ... but most still represent great value for the money.
If I were buying today I'd be looking at 1080p projectors simply because projectors are the only HDTV capable device where 1080p is ALWAYS a benefit (See Link 2 for why). And the price differential between a 720p and 1080p model has dropped to $1000 or less. If 1080p is still too rich for you, the 720p category has some great choices too (I have a 720p model and am not rushing to replace it any time soon).
That said, there are differences between the projectors in each resolution class (the only fair way to differentiat). The most obvious is in the technical basis for the projector -- LCD, DLP, LCoS -- and in the degree of mounting flexibility (zoom lens range, offset capability).
Past that I highly recommend reading detailed reviews .. particulalry comparative reviews where differences between models are specifically identified ... at the two sites at the links below (3rd and 4th link)
Hope this helps.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Title Post: Do you think the game of baseball has been more successful or less successful following the 1994-95 strike?
Rating: 98% based on 9457 ratings. 4,7 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
Rating: 98% based on 9457 ratings. 4,7 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment