PDA

View Full Version : BP on attendance.


Dadawg_77
06-17-2004, 04:19 PM
Moreover, the notion that the presence of a few dominant franchises like the Yankees is bad for the league is also suspect. The sort of fans who can make the difference between a year in the black and a year in the red are those fans who come out to just a handful of games a year, and it's helpful for those fans to have some dates on the schedule involving games against teams that are particularly loveable or detestable. One wonders, for example, whether the White Sox attendance problems aren't brought about in part by playing an unbalanced schedule against a division full of unexciting, personality-starved opponents.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2979

Tekijawa
06-17-2004, 04:27 PM
No I think it's the blue seats, steep upperdeck, and bad neighborhood, Moronotti told me so!

bobj4400
06-17-2004, 04:28 PM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2979
Wow...I like the argument.

Lip Man 1
06-17-2004, 11:33 PM
The comment about the Yankees being somehow bad for baseball right now is interesting. I understand about the dominance factor but does anyone thinks it is any worse today then say back in the 50's. Does anybody think the Senators, Browns or Athletics had a chance to win anything?

There were very few teams that even came close to giving the Yankees any trouble during the period from 1950 through 1964. About the only one who ever did it consistently was the White Sox. Cleveland and Detroit had their moments but never for any prolonged period.

Lip

owensmouth
06-17-2004, 11:44 PM
The comment about the Yankees being somehow bad for baseball right now is interesting. I understand about the dominance factor but does anyone thinks it is any worse today then say back in the 50's. Does anybody think the Senators, Browns or Athletics had a chance to win anything?

There were very few teams that even came close to giving the Yankees any trouble during the period from 1950 through 1964. About the only one who ever did it consistently was the White Sox. Cleveland and Detroit had their moments but never for any prolonged period.

Lip
True, but what makes the difference now is free agency. In the 50s the players were under contract to one club. The money machine that is the Yankee organization gives them a huge advantage to repeatedly buy the pennant.

Dadawg_77
06-18-2004, 01:56 AM
The comment about the Yankees being somehow bad for baseball right now is interesting. I understand about the dominance factor but does anyone thinks it is any worse today then say back in the 50's. Does anybody think the Senators, Browns or Athletics had a chance to win anything?

There were very few teams that even came close to giving the Yankees any trouble during the period from 1950 through 1964. About the only one who ever did it consistently was the White Sox. Cleveland and Detroit had their moments but never for any prolonged period.

Lip
Actually I think you mis read that, I might not have provide the full context. What the author point is, teams like the Yankees and Cubs are good for baseball in the fact they drive up attendance numbers in opposing ball parks. People pay to see those teams in other cities thus those teams make baseball money. Where as the White Sox without a rivals like the Red Sox or Cardinals suffer in attendance because the Tigers, Twins, Clevland and Royals don't put fannies in the seats.

ewokpelts
06-20-2004, 06:48 PM
Actually I think you mis read that, I might not have provide the full context. What the author point is, teams like the Yankees and Cubs are good for baseball in the fact they drive up attendance numbers in opposing ball parks. People pay to see those teams in other cities thus those teams make baseball money. Where as the White Sox without a rivals like the Red Sox or Cardinals suffer in attendance because the Tigers, Twins, Clevland and Royals don't put fannies in the seats.
that's why unbalanced sched DONT work.
Gene