Readers of sports sections have different ideas about what should appear in those sections. The New York Times, as we noted in a column earlier this week, either believes or thinks its readers want its sports section to include articles about cup stacking, beach volleyball, duckpin bowling, soccer and tennis more than baseball.

However, Times readers who read this website think otherwise. I have taken no survey, but reader response to the column about the Times sports section was one of the largest responses this site has received in its eight-year existence, and the responses were unanimous. No one defended or supported the Times practices, including its baseball coverage and choice of topics to feature.

Again I have no survey-based evidence, but I suspect many of this site’s readers – viewers in Internet lingo – are Times refugees, eager to read about baseball, which they can no longer do in the Times.

I am not in a contest with the Times for readers – I’m not foolish or egotistical enough to do that – but the Times has abandoned readers who want to read about baseball, presumably thinking it can lure new readers with soccer and tennis and oddball pieces like cup stacking. The Times desperation to survive the stark decline of newspapers is palpable.

The e-mail responses to the Times column were eye-opening and should be of interest to Times editors and executives, but in reality they probably know all of this but don’t care. It’s their product and they can destroy it any way they choose.

This first e-mail comes from someone I choose not to identify. He is a former editor, and I don’t want to wreck his chances of getting another such job if he wants to.

“Read your column today and share your sadness and frustration. There was a time when the NYT baseball coverage could not be beat. Now it cannot be found. Seriously…. as you point out, the subjects they lead with now are often ludicrous. Have no idea what audience they think they are reaching.

“I’ve also had conversations about what is happening in NYT sports with current staffers. No one is very happy with what is happening over there.

“Certainly not the readers!”

Another former editor referred to the Times sports editor, Jason Stallman, and wrote, “You lit the Bunsen burner under Stallman, but he feels no pain — ever.”

And then there are the readers, from whose responses these are selected.

“I stopped reading the NYT for the reasons you cite so well,” Phil Weintraub wrote. “I Iive in Rochester, NY and they charge $3.00 and $6.00 on Sunday. Sports section stinks. I could care less about soccer. I read the NY Post even though I hate their politics, but they do have a good Sports Section.”

Sidney Harris wrote:

“That column about the sports section is wonderful, and expresses the thoughts and feelings of many of your readers.

“In fact recently I’ve been thinking of it as the Soccer Section. However, sarcasm is not going to get us very far.

“You were kind to say that the article about going for the 2 hour marathon had two full-page photos. If I remember correctly, there were three – the first day there was a wraparound, enormous photo on the front and back pages of the sports section of a landscape or seascape, with a tiny, 2-inch figure running. The next day was that full-page picture of trees, with another 2-inch figure running.

“So they certainly can’t claim lack of space. I also miss the lists of the leading hitters each day. Now a truncated version appears a couple of days a week, but they often run out of space after doubles or triples, and skip the pitchers completely.

“Perhaps a new editor will arrive who will have a better idea of who is reading that section.”

From Robert McGee:

“Spot on with this piece….although with the experience at ballparks these days, and the prices, it’s possible your old compadres are feeling baseball games are about as egalitarian as horse shows, replete with too many decamillionaires who too often behave like horses’ asses. Since Canadian papers still deign to cover hockey, I’d like to think, though, that I could still go to our old standby to see some agate and puzzle a bit about winning and losing pitchers.”

Nobby Ito wrote simply, “I miss NYT and SI of the 70’s.”

From Stephen Milman: “At last!!! i began to think i was the only one noticing the demise (and as a 70 year fan of an out-of- town team, in disbelief the box scores were dropped) … today’s example of ‘not caring about baseball’, in the article about the ‘86 Mets was a picture of seven returning Mets, only one of which was identified.”

Rich Corso wrote:

“I too agree that the Times has allowed the Sports Section to go down the toilet for the better then (sic) average fan. I realized how bad things were when the Rangers were still in the NHL Playoffs and I would find that some of the reports were from the A.P. This is a far cry from the days when I would run into Dave Anderson when he was covering ’94 playoffs. Fortunately, I have The Post and Newsday. And, speaking of Newsday, who would have thought that their sports section would one day leave the mighty NY Times in the dust. By the way, should you speak to someone at the Times please tell them that the last time that I cared about soccer was when my kids played and that the next time I will care is when my grandsons start playing.”

Mitchell Schwartz wrote:

“I’m with you on this. I still get the print edition of the NYT delivered to my house in Los Angeles. I always loved reading the Times sports section, because, like the rest of the paper, it was so well written.

“I think Billy Witz is really good still. But you are right; the stories they write seem like they are almost life style pieces. I want hard sports.

“The newspaper business is a very difficult business so I give the NYT and other papers the benefit of the doubt, usually…..but it’s hard when you see something that you loved, but that also worked, get diminished.”

James Mondschean wrote:

“1. Everything dies, it is just a question of when.

2. That paper compared the 2016 GOP presidential candidate to Adolph Hitler on the front page today.

Very sad. I wouldn’t line my bird cage with it.

Love your column. My White Sox are slipping but it’s a long summer. We have hope.”

From Kevin Rooney: “It’s becoming a sport section for people who don’t like sports. Lol”

Kevin O’Neill wrote: “It is more than lamentable to see how the NYT has relegated baseball to less than 2nd class status. Online, upon clicking in for ‘sports’ one gets Motor Sports, Cricket, Rugby, Horse Racing, and Sailing! i wonder just who the audience is that they are addressing? Europeans? Rich Europeans? One has to scroll again to find ‘Baseball’. As you have pointed out, Baseball has been relegated to the perfunctory. Needless to say, I have missed your weekly ‘On Baseball’ that appeared every Sunday. Progress?!?”

Jordan Hirsch: “I am only in my fifties, but remember fondly being able to read Ira Berkow, Dave Anderson, and Murray Chass in the ‘paper of record.’ With all the proliferation of words being written about sports everywhere, there seems to be scant opportunity to find any of them memorable.”

Lorin Duckman: “I learned how to read by reading the sports pages of the Tribune (green colored) and the Telegram. A few years ago, I stopped watching games on TV, because the announcers were shills and hucksters. Turned to full time reading to follow the game. Now, there is nothing to read that isn’t dry and statistical. I lament with you.”

From Roger Kraminitz:

“Amen Murray, couldn’t agree more, been ranting at the Times sports coverage for a while. The loss of the box scores forced me to subscribe to the Daily News, because I prefer to look at them in a folded over newspaper, with my morning coffee, not on line. You failed to mention the diminished listing of the league leaders as well of the habit of proving individual stats for every pitcher and catcher in the Sunday section.

I wish there were something we could do about this, but thanks.”

Many of these comments, if not most, seem to come from older baseball fans, those who have supported the Times for years but whom the Times no longer cares about. With its wacky choice of articles, the Times is reaching out to younger readers, but younger readers don’t read newspapers. So the Times forsakes older readers while failing to attract new ones. Here is a final lament from an older reader. Gladys Laden writes:

“As a ‘senior citizen,’ I can remember the days when listening to a game on the radio meant listening to a teletype in the background so you can guess my age. My husband and I are big sports fans, particularly baseball and football, and have attended many more games than we can count. The NY Times as a source for sports news left us several years ago when we found that there was little to read that interested us. In fact, that was one of many reasons we no longer receive the paper version and instead read it only online.

“Here in northern NJ we are very lucky to have ‘The Record.’ Its daily sports pages (full section usually 6-8 pages in length) are outstanding, covering not only most professional sports in very satisfying detail but local HS and college sports as well. It’s our first read of the day. I only hope it continues.”

I never thought I would ever see someone choosing the Record over the Times. The Times should take the hint.