Moneyball

[Maxbialystock]

Not once.

 

I went to a couple Skeeters games when seats were discounted.

 

No interest in going to see the Astros play the Yanks.

 

Ok, now that is impressive.

[mvp 78]

Detroit population has gone down from 1.85M in 1950 to 640K in 2020. Income is no doubt also down.

 

Baltimore got hit with a double whammy. First Peter Angelos (owner), who is incompetent, then the Nationals, who sucked up a bunch of MLB fans, not necessarily Orioles fans, who loved going to watch MLB at Camden Yards. I've been to games at both parks and both have good sightlines and decent parking. Plus Nationals Park is a lot closer to N.Virginia which has a sizable population--2 million.

 

Charlotte, NC might work. Austin, TX? Jacksonville, FL? Indianapolis, IN?

 

Jacksonville? Tampa doesn't work and Miami doesn't work, but you want to try Jacksonville?

[mvp 78]

So you're saying the Trop--and not the fan base--is the problem.

 

That's what their fanbase believes.

[mvp 78]

I went to opening day in Tampa many years ago. (We blew the game in the 9th. It was the "closer by committee" season.)

 

It was easy in and out, and I liked the stadium. It wasn't great, but I got good seats for pretty cheap.

 

"Easy in and out" depends on where you live in the area. That's the issue.

[mvp 78]

It always seemed to me the Seminoles, Gators and (especially the) Hurricanes were more popular than the Dolphins…

 

I'd put the 'Canes popularity behind the Gators and the 'Noles. Gators might be the most popular team. Miami was more popular back in the day, but FSU and UF have a greater reach being public universities it seems, while Miami is a fairly expensive private one.

[notin]

That's what their fanbase believes.

 

All six of them?

[mvp 78]

All six of them?

 

Are those 6 fans able to turn all those tv's on to get them into middle of the road status? Impressive work folx!

[moonslav59]

"Easy in and out" depends on where you live in the area. That's the issue.

 

Likely the same issue at most ballparks.

[Jasonbay44]

The Rays stadium is one of the worst in the league, in a horrendous location. That thing is a hot, humid, s***** dump that’s hard to get in an out of.

[mvp 78]

The Rays stadium is one of the worst in the league, in a horrendous location. That thing is a hot, humid, s***** dump that’s hard to get in an out of.

 

Not according to moon who had a lovely vacation there. It certainly allows us to ignore all the people that live in the area who state that the ballpark was built in the wrong location. What would THEY know?

[moonslav59]

Not according to moon who had a lovely vacation there. It certainly allows us to ignore all the people that live in the area who state that the ballpark was built in the wrong location. What would THEY know?

 

I'm not trying to discount what the community thinks about the park and access.

 

I had a good experience.

 

I guess some park has to be labeled the worst.

 

If we had 30 Camden Yards, the one with one brick out of place would be called "the worst."

 

[mvp 78]

I'm not trying to discount what the community thinks about the park and access.

 

I had a good experience.

 

I guess some park has to be labeled the worst.

 

If we had 30 Camden Yards, the one with one brick out of place would be called "the worst."

 

 

The worst current park is OAK by all metrics. It was serviceable 20 years ago. It's an empty crumbling shithole now. The Rays have 50% more fans than the A's.

[Hugh2]

The Rays stadium is one of the worst in the league, in a horrendous location. That thing is a hot, humid, s***** dump that’s hard to get in an out of.

 

You would think with such poor attendance the drive in and out would be pretty easy.

[mvp 78]

You would think with such poor attendance the drive in and out would be pretty easy.

 

Is the stadium the only thing in the area causing traffic?

[Hugh2]

Is the stadium the only thing in the area causing traffic?

 

I don't remember I only drove by it twice, it's outside of Tampa Bay right off the highway and there doesn't seem to be much in the area, at first glance it would look like the traffic in/out would be easy.

 

But...It's not like I got off the highway and tried going to a game so I don't really know.

[Maxbialystock]

I'm going to go back to my OP and suggest that part of the Rays attendance problem is that they don't pay the big bucks for the big names. I do think the Trop (which I have never been inside of) is the worst ballpark in MLB. But this year the product on the field is absolutely superb, the very best in MLB.

 

I've been to Camden Yards several times. It's terrific. But the product on the field, combined with the Washington Nationals (and their new park) proving to be a good draw just 38 miles away, has seen attendance go steadily down.

 

The Orioles product right now is pretty good and the Nationals stink. So far the Nats average 21,285 and the Orioles 21,181.

 

When the Nats were the Expos in Montreal, the Orioles attendance was 34,344 in 2004. They went 78-84 that season.

[sk7326]

Near the end of the movie Moneyball Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) travels to Boston and Fenway Park to meet with the new Sox owner, John Henry (Arliss Howard), who is eager to tell Billy just what a monumental achievement the A's season had been.

 

He did that by comparing the cost per win that season (2003) between the Yankees (101 wins) and the A's (96 wins). From those numbers he concludes that any team that doesn't use sabermetrics is dumb.

 

However, we now know that, while John Henry may have admired the A's efficiency and use of sabermetrics, he did not hesitate to spend bucks for good players with the result that the Sox went several sold out years (sort of) and even this season, 9-9 after a season in which the Sox finished dead last in AL East, they are averaging 31,000 attendance. He didn't re-sign Bogaerts, but did keep Devers.

 

And the Rays with that absolutely brilliant opening run of 13 straight wins? They average 17,000 attendance.

I did a quick look at their cost per win this season and it's a terrific $555K. But it has to be that low because they have no fan base.

 

The LA Dodgers, on the other hand, are 9-9 this season--same as our Sox--but they average 50,000 attendees per game. Padres are 8-11 and average 41,000. Yankees, 10-7, average 39,000. Phillies, 7-11, average 38,000. All of those team have expensive star power--and pretty good fan bases.

 

Where I am headed with this? Simple. Fans these days don't care nearly as much about wins and losses as they do about star power.

 

Last week the Angels with Ohtani and Trout came to town and the Sox average attendance was 36,000. Last night with the no-name Twins, 28,000. And the Twins are a better team than the Angels thanks to their superb pitching. Good pitching doesn't mean squat unless the guy on the mound is a zillionaire.

 

Relatedly, look at the stories about MLB. Commentators talk or write endlessly about big salaries and how those pricey players are worth every dime. And you can bet they hated having to talk/write about the cheap charlie Rays winning 13 straight.

 

Bottom line: the thesis of Moneyball as stated by John Henry, not Billy Beane, is baloney. Winning isn't everything, not by a long shot, unless you have star power to go with it.

 

There are a few faulty assumptions here:

 

1. That the elasticity of demand is the same for every market. As you noted, the Rays have a pretty inelastic market ... winning doesn't really impact how fans treat the product. The Red Sox and Cubs ALSO have a pretty inelastic market for the opposite reasons. Opposing stars help things along, but how much really?

 

2. The actual Anaheim Angels are 13th in attendance. So having two elite players hasn't been a panacea. Last year, the Phillies had one of the biggest stars in the sport AND won the pennant ... but were 16th in attendance.

 

3. LA, San Diego and Philadelphia all have pretty serious ex ante dreams of winning it all. Nothing that has happened so far should dim their fan bases view on those team's contention. The ex ante assumptions on the Red Sox are kinda bearish and is shows.

[Maxbialystock]

There are a few faulty assumptions here:

 

1. That the elasticity of demand is the same for every market. As you noted, the Rays have a pretty inelastic market ... winning doesn't really impact how fans treat the product. The Red Sox and Cubs ALSO have a pretty inelastic market for the opposite reasons. Opposing stars help things along, but how much really?

 

2. The actual Anaheim Angels are 13th in attendance. So having two elite players hasn't been a panacea. Last year, the Phillies had one of the biggest stars in the sport AND won the pennant ... but were 16th in attendance.

 

3. LA, San Diego and Philadelphia all have pretty serious ex ante dreams of winning it all. Nothing that has happened so far should dim their fan bases view on those team's contention. The ex ante assumptions on the Red Sox are kinda bearish and is shows.

 

I like that word inelastic. It does apply to the Rays. And to the Sox and Cubs except that I do think the Sox attendance is in decline, which you seem to agree with in your 3d point.

 

I checked the Angels attendance and in fact Ohtani and Trout have not helped--their attendance was terrific in 2010 and still better than this year in 2016. Good point.

 

You are right about the Dodgers, et al. Their fan bases should have high expectations. In fact, I remember looking at Sox attendance during the John Henry era and discovered that attendance didn't go up much during a really good season--but did the following season. Thus it was higher in 2014 than in 2013 and higher in 2019 than in 2018.

[sk7326]

I like that word inelastic. It does apply to the Rays. And to the Sox and Cubs except that I do think the Sox attendance is in decline, which you seem to agree with in your 3d point.

 

I checked the Angels attendance and in fact Ohtani and Trout have not helped--their attendance was terrific in 2010 and still better than this year in 2016. Good point.

 

You are right about the Dodgers, et al. Their fan bases should have high expectations. In fact, I remember looking at Sox attendance during the John Henry era and discovered that attendance didn't go up much during a really good season--but did the following season. Thus it was higher in 2014 than in 2013 and higher in 2019 than in 2018.

 

There is some decline in Boston - but there is also some hard floor. April numbers are tricky more generally with the weather. But the expectations matter here too. Relative to the league their attendance standing is still about where it has been the last few years.

[Maxbialystock]

There is some decline in Boston - but there is also some hard floor. April numbers are tricky more generally with the weather. But the expectations matter here too. Relative to the league their attendance standing is still about where it has been the last few years.

 

The decline in Boston was probably inevitable because reportedly seasons were sold out in the early years of the John Henry era, which ended the curse two years in with an incredible come from behind ALCS win over the Yankees and three years later vs. Cleveland, coming from behind 1-3. But then not much until the semi-amazing 2013 and again another fallow period until 2018.

 

Even more amazing is Fenway is 110 years old with some of the worst sightlines in MLB--combined with high seat prices and high cost of hot dogs, etc.

 

On the other hand, the semi-genius of Fenway is it's relatively small capacity of 37K+. In a bad year against a bad team, they can still euchre the faithful to pay big bucks for right field corner seats where you can't see diddly. Plus all that history--including the very significant history of Boston itself.