Milwaukee ain't 10 million people but tiny? Where did that come from? How do you slice it that this adjective is appropriate?

There’s little evidence that the Marlins will ever draw well in Miami, but they’re building a new ballpark that will lock them in place for decades.

They've drawn well when ownership shows the most basic respect for fans.

Which is probably the real source of Billy Beane’s frustration. He thinks he knows how to fix things. But they won’t let him.

If Billy were really that frustrated he would move on to other things.

I could handle a lot of frustration at an MLB GM's salary.

There’s little evidence that the Marlins will ever draw well in Miami, but they’re building a new ballpark that will lock them in place for decades.

They've drawn well when ownership shows the most basic respect for fans.

I agree. Tickets sold like crazy on that one Tuesday.

Move the team with the lowest attendance to northern New Jersey.

Harveys: Milwaukee's either the smallest or 2nd-smallest market in MLB, right? I'd say that makes it "tiny", relatively-speaking at least. Sure, it's not Billings, Montana, but, since he was talking about Major League markets, it seems to me to be a fair word...

"Tiny" is a relative term. Yea, Milwukee's the smallest market in MLB, but someone has to be. According to Arbitron, Milwaukee's the #37 market in the US, and the markets ahead of it include Long Island (which I'd think is really part of NYC) and San Jose (which the Giants are adimant is part of their market).

Move the team with the lowest attendance to northern New Jersey.

And make it an annual tradition.

U.S. TV Household Estimates Designated
Market Area (DMA)


Orlando and Sacramento are the largest TV markets without a team in MLB.

Sacramende

Now we see the... Yankees operating as if they're creative mid- to small-market teams

One year removed from missing the playoffs completly, Sabathia WHAM! Blank check. Texieria WHAM! Blank check....oh hell, get Nick Swisher and give that Burnett guy a blank check too.

This is how the A's and Rays operate?

But from the very beginning, it was possible for franchises in bad spots to find better spots. Today, that’s practically impossible. Which is probably the real source of Billy Beane’s frustration. He thinks he knows how to fix things. But they won’t let him.

If the reported offers for Beltre and Scutaro are true, ownership is giving Beane some financial flexibility. The A's don't have any guaranteed contracts for 2011 (just a few buyouts), so the flexibility should continue going forward.

Attendance is harder to model that revenue (since sometimes teams -- Boston for instance -- transfer greater demand to higher ticket prices) That said, when I looked at modeling attendance a while back I found that Minnesota was the market most sensitive to team quality.

And St. Louis the least. St.Louis drew ~35% more than the model would predict and team quality had no discernible affect. I'd suggest that the Cardinals' consistent attempt to contend built a loyalty that my simplistic model (which considered only the current year and the previous year) failed to capture.

But from the very beginning, it was possible for franchises in bad spots to find better spots.

Actually, only one team has moved in the past 38 years, and that team had to use the nuclear option to do it. The last time a team moved to a demonstrably better market situation was ... the Dodgers?

I agree that the A's have a bad stadium situation, but with an ownership and GM committed to a good plan they ought to be able to compete in that division.

I'm shocked the Cubs are not the least sensitive.

That said, when I looked at modeling attendance a while back I found that Minnesota was the market most sensitive to team quality

Out of curiosity:
a) How did the Jays rank, and
b) Did you look at modeling attendance for non-baseball pro-teams?

I'm curious about the latter, as I'd guess that the Leafs are the team that is least sensitive to team quality for any of the four major pro sports (assuming that the NHL still counts as major), and I think it would be interesting to compare relative sensitivity among teams sharing the same market.

The last time a team moved to a demonstrably better market situation was ... the Dodgers?

Washington isn't a demonstrably better market than Montreal?

And I'm not being coy here - I know very little about Montreal as a baseball market.

I'd suggest that the Cardinals' consistent attempt to contend built a loyalty that my simplistic model (which considered only the current year and the previous year) failed to capture.

I would suggest that it's been the Cardinals' consistent ABILITY to contend that has built fan loyalty there. Lots of teams attempt to contend and fail and thus lose fans.

I'm shocked the Cubs are not the least sensitive.

Me too.

U.S. TV Household Estimates Designated
Market Area (DMA)

Nice "facts", but John Henry says Boston is the 16th largest TV market, and I'll take his word over some company that studies this kind of thing as its business.

I'd suggest that the Cardinals' consistent attempt to contend built a loyalty that my simplistic model (which considered only the current year and the previous year) failed to capture.

I have always felt that the Cardinals have the proper amount of success. They win enough to keep their fans from getting embittered, but not too much to make them insufferable.

I think it would be interesting to compare relative sensitivity among teams sharing the same market.

I'm not sure, but I strongly suspect that White Sox attendance tracks much more to team quality than Cubs attendance does, for at least the last 25 years or so.

Sacramende

I laughed.

Washington isn't a demonstrably better market than Montreal?

I was deliberately not counting that move, since they used the nuclear option to do it. But I should have made that clear.

Don't all moves employ the nuclear option?

Washington isn't a demonstrably better market than Montreal?

I was deliberately not counting that move, since they used the nuclear option to do it

Yes, and Washington fans are still feeling the fallout more than five years later.

Don't forget Montreal in the late 70's/early 80's was a high attendance team (vs the majors as a whole). Things can and do change. Late 80's the A's were the 'big market' team that could over-spend on draft picks (with high attendance to boot - #2 in the AL in 1989+1990, behind the Jays who had a new stadium).

A market can shift from small to large to small depending on the teams fortunes and marketing skill. Those A's of the late 80's/early 90's were an amazing team and did a great job marketing McGwire and Canseco. Montreal in the late 70's/early 80's was doing amazing (4th in 1979/80, 3rd in 81/82, 2nd in 83 before crashing in '84 and beyond) then after 84 started the fire sales (first Carter, then Dawson [attempted on Raines], slight recovery with Langston then ...)

You're right--Cleveland became a large market team in the mid 90s when they were winning--and now have reverted to a small market

Correction, they became a large market team when they got a new stadium and for the most part the rest of the league were still waiting for theirs.

They win enough to keep their fans from getting embittered, but not too much to make them insufferable.

You have obviously never been to St. Louis.

Sacramende

I laughed.

Never heard that, so I looked it up. It comes from a TV show I think I was supposed to have watched but never once did called Arrested Development:

Tobias: She’s hardly a child, is she, Michael.

Lindsay: Yeah, and we know where she is. She’s with her debate club, and they’re on their way to Sacremende for the semifinals.

You're right--Cleveland became a large market team in the mid 90s when they were winning--and now have reverted to a small market

Wasn't Philly getting revenue sharing money at one point in the last ten or so years?

There’s little evidence that the Marlins will ever draw well in Miami,

The Marlins drew over 3 million fans in 1993. They were 6th in NL attendance in 1994 before the strike and 5th in 1997. The Marlins have completely screwed up a very viable market.

"The (Marlins have) drawn well when ownership shows the most basic respect for fans."

I'm not sure how much more "respectful" you can be than to put a World Champion on the field. In 2003, Florida averaged 16,089 fans per game* (15th of 16 NL clubs) and went on to win 91 games and the World Series.

In 17 years in Miami, the Fish have finished last or second to last in attendance in the NL 10 times, 14th out of 16 one year and 13th out of 16 another year. They have never been in the top 4 in the NL. In 1993, their first season, they finished 5th; and they did that again in 1997 when they won their first World Series. The only other 2 seasons they finished better than 10th of the 16 NL teams were there 2nd and 3rd years in existence, when they still had that new car smell.

------------------

*I wonder about attendance figures. I've been to a lot of poorly attended A's games where they said the attendance was 15,000-20,000 and I could see in the park at most 5,000-6,000 fans. I get the feeling teams "sell" a lot of tickets (at steeply reduced prices) to friends and to companies they do business with and those ticket "sales" get counted as part of the gate, even when they go unused.

I'm not sure how much more "respectful" you can be than to put a World Champion on the field.

Waiting until the victory parade is over to start the fire sale is a start.

>>>In 1993, their first season, they finished 5th;<<<

And drew over three million fans --- that is a very good draw.

They have never been in the top 4 in the NL.

By contrast, my A's have finished 1st in attendance in the American League not once or twice, but 6 times: 1902, 1903, 1907, 1910, 1911 and 1925!

From 1971-75, when the A's went 476-326 (which was the best record in the majors over that period), won 3 world championships, won 5 division titles, and produced Cy Young winners (Vida Blue--1971; Catfish Hunter--1974) and AL MVPs (Vida Blue--1971; Reggie Jackson--1973), they averaged 11,867 fans per game. Of the 12 AL clubs from '71-'75, the A's were 7th, 5th, 8th, 11th and 6th in attendance. Back then, they had a shiny new ballpark, too.

The common wisdom is to place the blame on Charlie Finley. I don't buy it. I just think Oakland, my native city, is not a really good sports town*. The Warriors do fine, but that's because there is no team in San Francisco. The Raiders drew very well in the late 1970s and into the early-1980s. But they drew poorly before 1975 and have drawn poorly since returning from L.A. (Of course, the Raiders have mostly sucked since returning from L.A. A winner would draw.)

*Why is Oakland not a good sports town? Five reasons (and note any "facts" I cite are made up): 1) Gertrude Stein. The population of the City of Oakland is not very big. And for the East Bay, it does not really serve as a hub. San Francisco, only 6 miles away, is the Bay Area's center of gravity and the place Bay Area residents feel proud of and want to go when they go somewhere; 2) Race and poverty. Oakland as a City is very diverse and in many places quite wealthy. However, the Coliseum complex is in a poor, black, crime-ridden neighborhood and, while (white and other non-poor) people may drive the Nimitz to games, they don't want to hang around that area. It is not a destination place; 3) The Coliseum itself sucks for both baseball and football; 4) Demographics. The East Bay seems to have a substantial percentage of its population which did not grow up watching American sports like baseball and football; and 5) Politics. Unlike other parts of the country where voters and politicians will favor pro sports franchises and give them lots of tax money, the attitude in Oakland (and most of California) is "No, we have other priorities."

Excuses #2 and #3 could be fixed (as they were in San Francisco when the Giants left Candlestick) by building a shiny, new baseball stadium for the A's near Jack London Square.

Re: Excuse 2 -- Would it be theoretically possible to gentrify the Coliseum's neighborhood?

Would it be theoretically possible to gentrify the Coliseum's neighborhood?

The Coliseum is in an industrial neighborhood, and it's surrounded by acres of parking lots. "Gentrification" would have to be on a massive scale, involving re-zoning the land and building lots of new homes.

The common wisdom is to place the blame on Charlie Finley.

The reason being that the great LaRussa teams drew very well, among the best in the AL every year.

From the list in #10, I think its been proven that every market outside of 1, 2, 3 and 7 are "small market".

#38 -- Dewey is right. It's an industrial area. But not all "industrial areas" have the same feel. The area around the Coliseum is ugly and strewn with gang graffiti and it feels grimy, especially near the BART tracks along San Leandro Street. (By contrast, the trip to the Oakland airport, west of the freeway, is industrial, also, but not bad*.) The residential neighborhoods east of San Leandro Street are not the worst Oakland has to offer. I don't think there are any large public housing projects. But they are poor and (I guess) have high crime rates. (The small, 1950s era stucco houses tend to have very substantial chain link fences in the front yards and heavy bars on the windows. You'll also find a large number of pit bulls in those front yards.)

*It's worth noting that Pac Bell Park in China basin is in an industrial neighborhood, albeit one which has gentrified. Raley Field in West Sacramento also is in an industrial area.

From the list in #10, I think its been proven that every market outside of 1, 2, 3 and 7 are "small market".

Come on. Market #2 can't even support a NFL team.

The Marlins drew over 3 million fans in 1993. They were 6th in NL attendance in 1994 before the strike and 5th in 1997.

These are interesting claims, but all of the numbers above are pre-revenue sharing. Once you're guaranteed massive windfalls of free, unearned money every year, enticing fans to your product becomes more of an afterthought. Besides, too many fans can be a hassle, they mess up the bathrooms and tear up the parking lot.

The Raiders drew very well in the late 1970s and into the early-1980s. But they drew poorly before 1975...

Incorrect. The Raiders started selling out regularly in 1969 and shortly after that, there was a waiting list for season tickets. In 1969, their average attendance was 53,102. The Coliseum's capacity for football games at that time was 54,000.

In 1973, scheduling conflicts with the A's forced the Raiders to play some preseason and early regular season games at Memorial Stadium in Berkeley. Over 74,000 watched the Raiders play the Dolphins in September 1973. This was a single game attendance record for the Bay Area at that time.

I have no idea where Rich got the idea that the Raiders drew poorly before 1975. They drew poorly before 1966, which is the year the Oakland Coliseum opened.

The Raiders and 49ers disprove Rich's claims in an earlier thread that a team in Oakland will always be second banana to a team in San Francisco. Once Al Davis returned after his stint as the AFL's commisioner, the Raiders dominated the 49ers for over a decade. The Raiders got the headlines and the 49ers were back page news. This didn't end until Davis announced his plan to move the Raiders to Los Angeles. With that announcement, season tickets weren't renewed, the waiting list evaporated and game day tickets could be purchased at the Coliseum in 1981 when the Raiders were the defending Super Bowl champs.

I believe it's a mistake to dismiss Charlie Finley as a major reason for poor fan support during the A's dynasty period for the same reason. Oakland will not get behind a team that threatens to leave town. (Oakland isn't alone in this regard.) Finley was making threats to move the team as early as 1969. When the Haas family owned the team, they put a competitive team on the field and made it clear they wanted to be in Oakland. Fan support was strong and attendance was near the top of the league.

The Oakland Coliseum is not great stadium but fans will come if the team is competitive and marketed well. So far as marketing campaigns go, "This stadium is terrible. Give us a new one or we're going to leave" is self-defeating. It's a good way to guarantee few will attend your games beyond the hardcore fans. Of course, if your plan all along was to move, it's a really good one.

The common wisdom is to place the blame on Charlie Finley.

"If the devil had a name, it'd be Chuck Finley!"

So sayeth Tawny Kitaen.

Rich: note any "facts" I cite are made up ... The Raiders drew very well in the late 1970s and into the early-1980s. But they drew poorly before 1975...

Charlie: Incorrect. The Raiders started selling out regularly in 1969 and shortly after that, there was a waiting list for season tickets.

I stand corrected. I did not look up any numbers. My family had a pair of season tickets for the Raiders from 1974-1981. My recollection (wrong, as you say) was that earlier tickets were easy to come by. I also recall quite a lot of empty seats that first year ('74), but very few in the later seasons.

One thing those tickets were was cheap. We sat on the visitors side (in the bleachers) at about the 20 yard line in the lower bowl. In other words, pretty good seats. I'm not sure what the face value was on them, but I remember in 1980 (when I was in high school) they were about $13 each. You did not have to buy pre-season tickets, then. So the whole 8-game package cost around $104.

When the Raiders made it through to the Super Bowl -- in New Orleans -- we were put in a lottery to have the chance to buy tickets for that game. We "won" and were able to buy 2 Super Bowl tickets. I don't recall exactly what their face value was, but I think somewhere around $75, maybe a little more. The amount we sold them for -- maybe $200 each? -- minus the price we paid was greater than the amount we paid for our season ticket package. In other words, the entire 1980 season cost us less than nothing.

#17 Ryan I haven't been able to find the study -- even though I know I posted the results to RSB. And no, I didn't look at other sports.

I suspect the Leafs would be in an essential tie with football teams that have waiting lists for season tickets.

To follow up on Rich's comments in #47, my Dad was a season ticket holder from 1962-1981. I'm not sure about the period at Youell Field from 1962-1965 but once the Raiders moved into the Oakland Coliseum in 1966, the preseason games were part of the season ticket package. You couldn't buy the season ticket without the preseason games. Are you sure your folks didn't just sell or give away the preseason game tickets?

Our seats were also in the bleachers but at the 45 yard line. Section 406, top row, seats 1 & 2. I don't remember how much the tickets cost in the 60s and 70s. I remember my Dad ######## a bunch when the price went up to $12.00. Your family must have been a lot better off than mine because the Raider tickets were considered expensive in our household.

Prior to 1973, all home games were blacked out on local TV, including sellouts and playoff games. You seldom saw an empty seat from 1969 through 1972 because the only way to see the games was to be there. The home blackout rule was changed in 1973 and home games were allowed on local TV if they sold out 72 hours in advance. At that time all of the Raiders' games were sellouts so all of them were on TV. You'd see some empty seats if the weather was bad and a weak opponent was in town because the fair weather fans would stay home and watch the game on the tube.