I say this does - not - mean baseball is dying. Since the MLB All-Star game means the most our of all them (thats not saying much) - or at least has in the past - then I can easily see the viewers being skewed like this.

And it was largely a young group of all-stars that will probably be starting those games for the next 10 years. Young people will stay tuned.

1976 All Star game 36% viewed
2016. 11%

Here is an article on MLB attendance 1950 to recent:

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2014/2/10/5390172/major-league-attendance-trends-1950-2013

Looks like the mid summer classic has lost some appeal, but baseball in general is doing just fine...

In 1976, cable TV was still in it's infancy. There was no satellite TV (I don't think), there was no internet, there was no MLB Network, there was no SportsCenter, etc.

To see the great players of the day, you got two nationally televised baseball games every week ("Game of the Week" on NBC on Saturday afternoon, and "Monday Night Baseball" on ABC), and often they were the popular teams of the day (I remember Reds/Dodgers being a common matchup whenever they played). Some players in some markets were difficult to ever have an opportunity to watch. It was always a treat to see Nolan Ryan pitching for the Angels on Monday night, maybe once every other season.

The All-Star game was typically the one opportunity every season one had to see all the MLB stars of the day. So that helped with high ratings.

Today the landscape is much different. No matter where you live, you have opportunities (should you be willing to pay) to watch any game, any player, at any time. The All-Star game is no longer special, it's no longer a "must-see". It's not because of the game itself, it's just because of the availability of season-long exposure to all of MLB.

Much like my point that you can't compare current players to players from a different era, you can't compare TV ratings from different eras either.

I was listening to an interview with Larry Bowa and he was talking about how competitive it was then. Not so much now. Still better than the sucky Pro Bowl

1964	$14,863.00
1965	$14,341.00	-$522.00	-3.51%
1966	$17,664.00	$3,323.00	23.17%
1967	$19,000.00	$1,336.00	7.56%
1968	$20,632.00	$1,632.00	8.59%
1969	$24,909.00	$4,277.00	20.73%
1970	$29,303.00	$4,394.00	17.64%
1971	$31,543.00	$2,240.00	7.64%
1972	$34,092.00	$2,549.00	8.08%
1973	$36,566.00	$2,474.00	7.26%
1974	$40,839.00	$4,273.00	11.69%
1975	$44,676.00	$3,837.00	9.40%
1976	$52,300.00	$7,624.00	17.07%
1977	$74,000.00	$21,700.00	41.49%
1978	$97,800.00	$23,800.00	32.16%
1979	$121,900.00	$24,100.00	24.64%
1980	$146,500.00	$24,600.00	20.18%
1981	$196,500.00	$50,000.00	34.13%
1982	$245,000.00	$48,500.00	24.68%
1983	$289,000.00	$44,000.00	17.96%
1984	$325,900.00	$36,900.00	12.77%
1985	$368,998.00	$43,098.00	13.22%
1986	$410,517.00	$41,519.00	11.25%
1987	$402,579.00	-$7,938.00	-1.93%
1988	$430,688.00	$28,109.00	6.98%
1989	$489,539.00	$58,851.00	13.66%
1990	$589,483.00	$99,944.00	20.42%
1991	$845,383.00	$255,900.00	43.41%
1992	$1,012,424.00	$167,041.00	19.76%
1993	$1,062,780.00	$50,356.00	4.97%
1994	$1,154,486.00	$91,706.00	8.63%
1995	$1,094,440.00	-$60,046.00	-5.20%
1996	$1,101,455.00	$7,015.00	0.64%
1997	$1,314,420.00	$212,965.00	19.33%
1998	$1,378,506.00	$64,086.00	4.88%
1999	$1,726,282.68	$347,776.68	25.23%
2000	$1,987,543.03	$261,260.35	15.13%
2001	$2,343,710.00	$356,166.97	17.92%
2002	$2,385,903.07	$42,193.07	1.80%
2003	$2,555,476.00	$169,572.93	7.11%
2004	$2,486,609.00	-$68,867.00	-2.69%
2005	$2,632,655.00	$146,046.00	5.87%
2006	$2,866,544.00	$233,889.00	8.88%
2007	$2,944,556.00	$78,012.00	2.72%
2008	$3,154,845.14	$210,289.14	7.14%
2009	$3,240,206.81	$85,361.67	2.71%
2010	$3,297,828.37	$57,621.56	1.78%

No idea what winning/losing shares were in 1976 but I bet it was a much bigger percentage of salary than it is now.

Good point.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/14/2016 2:36:00 PM (view original):

1964	$14,863.00
1965	$14,341.00	-$522.00	-3.51%
1966	$17,664.00	$3,323.00	23.17%
1967	$19,000.00	$1,336.00	7.56%
1968	$20,632.00	$1,632.00	8.59%
1969	$24,909.00	$4,277.00	20.73%
1970	$29,303.00	$4,394.00	17.64%
1971	$31,543.00	$2,240.00	7.64%
1972	$34,092.00	$2,549.00	8.08%
1973	$36,566.00	$2,474.00	7.26%
1974	$40,839.00	$4,273.00	11.69%
1975	$44,676.00	$3,837.00	9.40%
1976	$52,300.00	$7,624.00	17.07%
1977	$74,000.00	$21,700.00	41.49%
1978	$97,800.00	$23,800.00	32.16%
1979	$121,900.00	$24,100.00	24.64%
1980	$146,500.00	$24,600.00	20.18%
1981	$196,500.00	$50,000.00	34.13%
1982	$245,000.00	$48,500.00	24.68%
1983	$289,000.00	$44,000.00	17.96%
1984	$325,900.00	$36,900.00	12.77%
1985	$368,998.00	$43,098.00	13.22%
1986	$410,517.00	$41,519.00	11.25%
1987	$402,579.00	-$7,938.00	-1.93%
1988	$430,688.00	$28,109.00	6.98%
1989	$489,539.00	$58,851.00	13.66%
1990	$589,483.00	$99,944.00	20.42%
1991	$845,383.00	$255,900.00	43.41%
1992	$1,012,424.00	$167,041.00	19.76%
1993	$1,062,780.00	$50,356.00	4.97%
1994	$1,154,486.00	$91,706.00	8.63%
1995	$1,094,440.00	-$60,046.00	-5.20%
1996	$1,101,455.00	$7,015.00	0.64%
1997	$1,314,420.00	$212,965.00	19.33%
1998	$1,378,506.00	$64,086.00	4.88%
1999	$1,726,282.68	$347,776.68	25.23%
2000	$1,987,543.03	$261,260.35	15.13%
2001	$2,343,710.00	$356,166.97	17.92%
2002	$2,385,903.07	$42,193.07	1.80%
2003	$2,555,476.00	$169,572.93	7.11%
2004	$2,486,609.00	-$68,867.00	-2.69%
2005	$2,632,655.00	$146,046.00	5.87%
2006	$2,866,544.00	$233,889.00	8.88%
2007	$2,944,556.00	$78,012.00	2.72%
2008	$3,154,845.14	$210,289.14	7.14%
2009	$3,240,206.81	$85,361.67	2.71%
2010	$3,297,828.37	$57,621.56	1.78%

Might be really obvious but, idk what these numbers are

Average salary, increase/decrease, percentage of inc/dec.

IOW, in 1976, players made 52k. So, if A/S winners got 15k and losers got 10k, the difference was a 10% of their annual paycheck. So, of course, it was more competitive.

1977 and 1991 - they should have been playing like Pete Rose plowing into Ray Fosse. If you have a shot of making over 40% of your annual salary just because your team wins one game - that would be incentive enough for me. Then again, if that's the average salary of ALL players from that season, then you have to figure the majority of the players who made the All-Star team were making a bit more than the average. Still, I think high shares would do more for competitiveness than home-field advantage in the World Series when your team only has a 2 in 30 shot at getting that far.

Posted by thejuice6 on 7/15/2016 1:33:00 PM (view original):
1977 and 1991 - they should have been playing like Pete Rose plowing into Ray Fosse. If you have a shot of making over 40% of your annual salary just because your team wins one game - that would be incentive enough for me. Then again, if that's the average salary of ALL players from that season, then you have to figure the majority of the players who made the All-Star team were making a bit more than the average. Still, I think high shares would do more for competitiveness than home-field advantage in the World Series when your team only has a 2 in 30 shot at getting that far.

As I heard either Wednesday or yesterday . . . the Twins have secured home-field advantage in this year's World Series.