Behold, the Pittsburgh Pirates: Exhibit A in the argument against the premise that "a new stadium will solve all our problems." After we have disproven this premise, we can move on to answering the question: "If a new stadium is built and the promised franchise revitalization has not been achieved, what next?"

If a new stadium is built and the promised franchise revitalization has not been achieved, what next?

I'm ashamed that I got sucked into the pro-park side when I was in university. Age and experience with corporations has led me to realize I was on the wrong side.

And I view the current Pirate ownership and Dave Littlefield as some sort of sick karmic payback that I wish would stop.

“Our season-ticket sales are where we had expected them to be based on what other teams have experienced in the year following the All-Star Game,” Chiera said.

I'm sure the team sucking canal water for over a decade has nothing to do with it.

"If a new stadium is built and the promised franchise revitalization has not been achieved, what next?"

Define revitalization? I think for the Pirates, it means turning a profit, so Mission Accomplished! It's too bad, really. On the other hand, they have the foundation of a good team in place. So, you never know. If that pr!ck Loria can win a Series, maybe the Pirates can, too.

"Season ticket sales dropped 20 percent"

From 5 to 4 people.

a shame.

They have a GREAT park.

It is NOT a baseball town. Even when they were a good team, getting cheap tickets was easy.

Move the club to Louisville, and let them play 20 home games a year in Pittsburgh.

a shame.

They have a GREAT park.

It is NOT a baseball town. Even when they were a good team, getting cheap tickets was easy.

Move the club to Louisville, and let them play 20 home games a year in Pittsburgh.

"Move the club to Louisville, and let them play 20 home games a year in Pittsburgh."

I hope you get cancer and die, but not for a long time.

Upon further reflection, that was somewhat harsh, and I regret my comment.

Still, you should know better than to try and take someone's team away.

I'm not from Pittsburgh, but I went to school there. PNC is a beautiful park, but I wonder if it's suffering from the low turnouts, which presumably lead to budget cuts. I went to a game there last year, pre-All Star game, and was surprised by the amount of trash and dirt. Those stainless steel tables in the concourse, which are otherwise a nice feature, were uniformly filthy.

I was shocked by the indifference to the Pirates when I was there in the mid-80's. Admittedly, they weren't a contender, but they were a young, improving team. I attended the first ever sellout of Three Rivers, the home opener in '87, which is pretty amazing considering the teams they had there in the 70's. I think Pittsburgh is a great sports town generally, which makes the Pirates' struggles all the more mystifying. I don't think you can blame it all on the team's shortcomings.

A lot of this is because the Penguins were so exciting and good this year, making the Pirates look even worse by comparison, and making the ownership's "Woe is us, heh heh her" attitude even less convincing.

PNC Park has, in fact, spurred a revitalization of the area that it is in, though. Or maybe that was a coincidence.

It is NOT a baseball town.

I hear this about every other town in MLB outside of New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and St. Louis.

What is the definition of a baseball town? Where the baseball team is the most popular franchise? Where attendance never drops, even after successive losing seasons? Just curious to see what others here think.

Is Kansas City a baseball town? Baltimore? Seattle?

Still, you should know better than to try and take someone's team away.

Didn't Pittsburgh originally take its franchise from Louisville?

Pittsburgh really just isn't a very big city. There's only about 325,000 people living in the city. There's more people in the suburbs, but still fewer than most MLB cities.

Pittsburgh has been hemorrhaging population the last 50 years or so; it used to have about 750,000. I don't know whether the suburban growth has kept the metro area population steady or not, but I can't imagine it's grown any.

It is NOT a baseball town.

I hear this about every other town in MLB outside of New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and St. Louis.

I'd say Cleveland, too. Remember that huge sell-out streak?

Oddly enough, as a Chicago resident (OK, suburbs, close enough) this place is a football town first and foremost. More than that, it's a large town. Thus it can support two teams even if it's first love is something else.

What is the definition of a baseball town? Where the baseball team is the most popular franchise? Where attendance never drops, even after successive losing seasons? Just curious to see what others here think.

I'd say it's a town where attendance is at least as good, and often better, than the team's record.

I'd note that being/not being a baseball town isn't written in stone. I remember the Mariners took over a decade to sell out the Kingdome, but when the Seahawks switched to the NFC, ESPN did a report on some Seattle talk radio people and they said it wasn't a big deal because "Seattle was more a baseball town anyway." Quality of club, and marketing can help raise/lower baesball's standards. But other factors beyond a club's control come into play as well - quality of other teams (if the Seahawks won a couple of Super Bowls in the 1980s I doubt Seattle would be a baseball town), tradition, and local culture (much like how basketball is a way of life and part of the local identity in Indiana, so has rooting for the Cards and Red Sox affecting civic identity in their respective burgs).

One other factor I think plays a role: what percentage of residents in a metropolis spent all their lives there? It seems like the places that have the best reputations as Good Sports Towns are places like St. Louis (Best Baseball Fans in the World) or Cleveland (the Dog Pound, and Jacobs Field sellout streak) where the fans grew up rooting for the old team, learned it from their dads, who learned it from their dads. Adds to the generational appeal. I think this especially hurts the Florida teams, because so many people moved there from elsewhere. The old Rust Belt Cities are generally among the top of peoples' lists of best sports towns.

I'd agree Pitt isn't a baseball town, especially if it's true that it took 15 years to get a single stinkin' sellout at Three Rivers. Looking at b-ref, when they had they Leyland glory years, they best they could do was one year with the sixth best attendance in the league. That's feable for a team with three straight division titles. It was the first time they'd come in the top half in league attendance since 1980, when the city celebrated the previous year's championship by giving the team the 6th best attendance in a 12 team league. Two years earlier they'd had the 11th best attendance while coming in 2nd place. That year they had their fifth straight two-top finish in the NL East; eighth time in nine years that happened.

Times Pitt has finished in the top half of attendance in the expansion era:
1990 (6th out of 12)
1980 (6th out of 12)
1974 (6th out of 12)
1972 (5th out of 12)
1962 (3rd out of 10)

They last led the league in attendance in 1948. The only other time they led was 1925.

Given what I said earlier about Rust Belt cities, it's especially impressive how bad Pitt's support has been. Still, it is one of the smallest metropolises out there, and the 1970s clearly caused the city to give its first allegiance to the Steelers. Who needs Stargell & Parker when Bradshaw & Harris win four rings in six years? Prior to Chuck Noll, the Pirates' attendance was generally in line with their performance.

Pittsburgh originally consolidated its franchise with the Louisville franchise. They had the same ownership, which was sending all the good players to the Pirates. Louisville, Cleveland, the original Baltimore Orioles, and some other team were all closed down after the 1899 season to prevent the ownership-of-two-teams thing from ruining competition.

Louisville Colonels:Pirates::Cleveland Spiders:Cardinals (although the Cardinals were the Browns back then).

Pittsburgh has been hemorrhaging population the last 50 years or so; it used to have about 750,000. I don't know whether the suburban growth has kept the metro area population steady or not, but I can't imagine it's grown any.

I'd be amazed if the metro region has diminished more than a little bit. St. Louis has a larger metro than it used. The city itself has a smaller population than it did in 1880. Really.

Seattle and Cleveland are awful examples. Fans showed up in droves when the teams were really, really good. How hard is that? Where were fans when the Indians totally sucked? Where were Mariners fans when they sucked? These aren't baseball towns, they're bandwagon towns. And there's nothing wrong with that. Crappy teams are not good draws.

There are very few places that will draw well if the team sucks for more than a year. Busch, Wrigley, Fenway and Dodger Stadium seem to be the only stadiums that continue to draw even if the team has a dry spell. Even New Yorkers stayed away from the Mets and Yankees when they sucked in the early 90s.

Pittsburgh Metro Area population dropped during the 90's. That looks to be a long term trend.

(From the second link, here's Allegheny's population:

)

Pittsburgh Metro Area population dropped during the 90's. That looks to be a long term trend.

(From the second link, here's Allegheny's population:

Though I imagine a lot of the metro population is in surrounding counties. (looks at them). Wow, they have some really big counties in PA, at least compared to IL. Population's up in Butler, but looks stagnant in Washington & Westmoreland and has decline in Beaver.

I guess the metro's population really has gone down noticabley. I'll be danged. I take back post #18.

I believe the Pittsburgh area was the only major metropolitan area other than New Orleans to lose population from 2000 to 2006.
http://www.observer-reporter.com/OR/Story/04_05_PA_MetroPopulation_Pittsburgh

One other factor I think plays a role: what percentage of residents in a metropolis spent all their lives there? It seems like the places that have the best reputations as Good Sports Towns are places like St. Louis (Best Baseball Fans in the World) or Cleveland (the Dog Pound, and Jacobs Field sellout streak) where the fans grew up rooting for the old team, learned it from their dads, who learned it from their dads. Adds to the generational appeal. I think this especially hurts the Florida teams, because so many people moved there from elsewhere. The old Rust Belt Cities are generally among the top of peoples' lists of best sports towns.

I think that Rustbelt towns are better for spectator sports because they are worse for participatory sports than the Sunbelt.

I blame those new (alternate?) uniforms. Red vests? What were they thinking? Those are hideous.

I think that exodus is well shown by the fact that most of the Pirates fans who post on this site are people who have moved out of the city (myself included).

Define revitalization?

1. Having at least one .500 or better season would be nice. Competing for a playoff spot or a division title would be better. The Pirates have not finished over .500 since the Leyland era. They have not competed for a division title since 1997, when they were in first place at the All Star break and finished the season 5 games behind the Astros. This is a shame, since the Central is not the most challenging division. Over the last 10 years, division champs have averaged between 94 and 95 wins. The division champ in 3 of the last 10 years (including 2006) won fewer than 90 games. Thus fielding a competitive team should not be out of the question even for a small-market team.

2. Having attendance of 2 million or greater on a consistant basis would also be a good indicator of a revitalized franchise. The only year the Pirates have done this in recent memory was the year PNC Park opened. Fielding a competitive team (#1) would go a long way to achieving #2; regardless of what owners would have the public think, having a winning team goes a long way towards getting the fans to show up. We know that at least the city of Pittsburgh has been hemorrhaging population, but it was losing population even during the team's salad days in the 1970's, so let's resist the temptation to correlate the attendance decline and overall fan indifference to the shrinkage of Pittsburgh.

This is not an exhaustive set of criteria, but it is a substantial portion of what I consider to be "revitalization". In one sense, the Pirates are already a successful franchise. The value of the club increased $85 million over a six-year period ending in 2004, and the organization has a positive cash flow. But it is far from a "revitalized" franchise.

Define revitalization?

1. Having at least one .500 or better season would be nice. Competing for a playoff spot or a division title would be better. The Pirates have not finished over .500 since the Leyland era. They have not competed for a division title since 1997, when they were in first place at the All Star break and finished the season 5 games behind the Astros. This is a shame, since the Central is not the most challenging division. Over the last 10 years, division champs have averaged between 94 and 95 wins. The division champ in 3 of the last 10 years (including 2006) won fewer than 90 games. Thus fielding a competitive team should not be out of the question even for a small-market team.

2. Having attendance of 2 million or greater on a consistant basis would also be a good indicator of a revitalized franchise. The only year the Pirates have done this in recent memory was the year PNC Park opened. Fielding a competitive team (#1) would go a long way to achieving #2; regardless of what owners would have the public think, having a winning team goes a long way towards getting the fans to show up. We know that at least the city of Pittsburgh has been hemorrhaging population, but it was losing population even during the team's salad days in the 1970's, so let's resist the temptation to correlate the attendance decline and overall fan indifference to the shrinkage of Pittsburgh.

This is not an exhaustive set of criteria, but it is a substantial portion of what I consider to be "revitalization". In one sense, the Pirates are already a successful franchise. The value of the club increased $85 million over a six-year period ending in 2004, and the organization has a positive cash flow. But it is far from a "revitalized" franchise.

I'd say Cleveland, too. Remember that huge sell-out streak?

Which coincided with the Browns leaving town. That city can't support more than one bandwagon. Cleveland has a long history of poor baseball attendence, although when the team is very good, it has been supported (1940's, 1990's).

Baltimore was a great baseball town, for years and years. It's taken a solid decade of willful malfeasance by Angelos to ruin that but I do believe that if a coherent and solid management ever appeared and had some solid results, it would be back in a flash.

I'm a Yankee fan but it's a crime what's happened in Baltimore. Through college in the 80's and living in the DC area on and off since then I've been to a number of games through the years and really think it would come back as a serious baseball town, but it's also possible that it's at or near the point of no return, in terms of people just never coming back. I think they will, as long as something happens sooner rather than later.

"I do believe that if a coherent and solid management ever appeared and had some solid results, it would be back in a flash."

This would do wonders for the Pirates as well.

The real test for Doumit is going to be whether he gets consistent PT once Nady's off the DL. Doumit's at least half again as good a player as Nady (and I'd probably take him in a stand-up fight against Paulino), but Tracy is, as always, pretty clueless about lineups.

"Move the club to Louisville, and let them play 20 home games a year in Pittsburgh."

I hope you get cancer and die, but not for a long time.
Upon further reflection, that was somewhat harsh, and I regret my comment.
Still, you should know better than to try and take someone's team away.

ooh, my colon and my prostrate! OK, seriously, maybe I should suggested a more reasonable solution.

Has any team seriously considered playing a portion of their games at a different location that would in essence becomes a team's 'second home'? Let's say 1/4th of their schedule. That is 21 games a year; not os much that fans near primary city A would feel like they lost their team, but enough that new city B would kinda sorts adopt the team.

criteria might include
a. not 1000s of miles away, but more than 50.
b. not infringing on other MLB areas
c. maybe some other 'connection'. history? minor lg affiliation?

If the Red Sox were a terrible draw, couldn't they set up to play 20 games a year at Pawtucket? Park in place (upgrades needed), AAA club, etc.

Seems like it could be a revenue-generating winner.

Of course there is the Green Bay (Milwaukee) Packers precedent.

So, in the case of Pittsburgh,
a. the Pirates currently do not draw well at all
b. even when they were good, it's mostly a football town
c. there is some historic connection to Louisville
d. Louisville has a minor league club that draws well, and isn't "too" close to another MLBC city.

Recommend investigating feasibility of the Pirates playing 20 home games a year in Louisville, assuming stadium is or can be made viable.

Louisville is quite close to Cincy, has the Reds AAA affiliate, and is Reds Country (ie Reds are ML team of choice).

Has any team seriously considered playing a portion of their games at a different location that would in essence becomes a team's 'second home'?

The Dodgers in their last few years in Brooklyn regularly played a handful of games per year in New Jersey; Newark I believe. And the White Sox in the late '60s regularly played a small number of games in Milwaukee.

I agree that Cleveland is not a "baseball town." Despite the Indians leading the division, and the Cavs getting the second seed in the playoffs, the major news on the sports talk stations has all centered around the Browns and the NFL draft.

On the same note, "bandwagon town" seems a little strong. There are groups of hardcore fans that keep each franchise alive, even in down years.

That being said, the Browns are the only show in town that can be consistently horrid, and still keep the primary attention of most fans.

Louisville is quite close to Cincy, has the Reds AAA affiliate, and is Reds Country (ie Reds are ML team of choice).

My father-in-law grew up in Louisville, and was a Reds' fan, attending games at Crosley Field. But he switched his allegiance to the Dodgers when Pee Wee Reese made the majors.

Has any team seriously considered playing a portion of their games at a different location that would in essence becomes a team's 'second home'? Let's say 1/4th of their schedule.

One wonders whether Edward Bennett Williams considered doing that with the Orioles (play 20 games or so a year in Washington) when he bought them in 1979, although that ultimately probably would have caused both metro D.C. and Baltimore to turn against him. Despite what Cuban Pete was bleating a few years ago, they're two entirely different markets.

But what is a "baseball" town? For decades, Detroit had that tag every bit as much as St. Louis. If Boston had a stretch of bad baseball similar to Pittsburgh, Fenway might draw decently now that it's a tourist attraction, but there wouldn't be sellouts aside from the occasional Yankees visit. And conversely, if you made the Phillies a perennial contender, as they were from 1976-83, they'd draw wonderfully. (A perfect example came in '81, when some 40,000 came to the Vet for an April Sunday afternoon game; across Pattison Avenue at the Spectrum, the 76ers only filled half the place for game 7 of a playoff series, despite the presence of Julius Erving.)

"The Dodgers in their last few years in Brooklyn regularly played a handful of games per year in New Jersey; Newark I believe."

A nitpick, but in the interest of accuracy, it was Roosevelt Field in Jersey City.

Has any team seriously considered playing a portion of their games at a different location that would in essence becomes a team's 'second home'?

Not baseball, but the Carolina Cougars of the ABA bounced around North Carolina, playing home games in Charlotte, Greensboro, and Raleigh. They didn't really succeed (this was before the state really exploded in population and wealth), but they survived for a few years.

Come to think of it, this strategy might succeed for a team in a place like North Carolina, which has multiple population centers (the Raleigh-Durham Triangle, the Greensboro-Winston-Salem Triad, and metro Charlotte), none of which would be large enough to host a team year-round, but who might sell tickets for 20 games or so. But you'd need 3 major league quality stadium, unless you wanted to try and play in AAA parks or converted football arenas. And the players's union might not be too thrilled about the idea.

Has any team seriously considered playing a portion of their games at a different location that would in essence becomes a team's 'second home'?

The Expos played in Puerto Rico.

The Celtics used to play a game or two in Hartford. I frrl like I missedout by neever going.

107 miles from Louisville to Cinci via mapquest.

Yes, it's Cinci's AAA town, but most AAA affiliations are not felt THAT strongly, are they?

Lots of other options: Lexington/Frankfurt? Charleston WV? Columbus OH? Buffalo NY?

Has any team seriously considered playing a portion of their games at a different location that would in essence becomes a team's 'second home'?

The Omaha/Kansas City Kings.

The Devil Rays I believe are playing a series in Orlando this year.

If a team were to do this, why not Buffalo, NY? I wouldn't totally object to the Royals playing a series in Oklahoma City.

The Celtics used to play a game or two in Hartford. I feel like I missed out by never going.

The Buffalo Braves played a few home games at Maple Leaf Gardens in Toronto, and until the MCI (now Verizon) Center was built, the then-Washington Bullets honored their Baltimore roots by playing a handful of games at the joke of an arena once known as the Baltimore Civic Center. (It was built in the early sixties with a stage to accommodate high school commencements at the insistence of some city council members; as a result, the NHL, which was very interested in Baltimore when it initially expanded from six to 12 teams in 1967, passed it up. It says something about Baltimore that an arena Washington imploded -- the old Capital Centre -- was superior to the arena it has now.)

A nitpick, but in the interest of accuracy, it was Roosevelt Field in Jersey City.

Ah! Yes.

>>>Has any team seriously considered playing a portion of their games at a different location that would in essence becomes a team's 'second home'?<<<

The Indians almost did that in the 1980's --- New Orleans would have been their second home.

"Has any team seriously considered playing a portion of their games at a different location that would in essence becomes a team's 'second home'?"

On top of the other ones already mentioned, there was the last gasp of the Expos playing games at Hiram Bithorn. And there was a minor-league team called the Road Warriors that had NO home stadium.

"Recommend investigating feasibility of the Pirates playing 20 home games a year in Louisville, assuming stadium is or can be made viable."

I'm going to repeat myself: Stop trying to steal my city's damn team.

The Pirates make plenty of money, even with the current level of attendance. Forbes estimated that they cleared $20M+ in net last year, without even casually trying to assemble a winning roster. Thus, there's no financial impetus to move. There's actually a substantial disincentive, since they'd get the crap sued out of them for violating the stadium lease on PNC Park.

The only things separating the Pirates from the Brewers are a competent GM and ownership that sees the team as more than a welfare check.

The only things separating the Pirates from the Brewers are a competent GM and ownership that sees the team as more than a welfare check.

While you are absolutely right about the Pirates neither needing nor wanting to play their games else, that's a bit like saying all that seperates Roger Clemens from Phil Hughes is a strong splitter and more years of pitching experience.

Pittsburgh originally consolidated its franchise with the Louisville franchise. They had the same ownership, which was sending all the good players to the Pirates.

Not so. Barney Dreyfuss didn't buy into the Pirates until after it became clear that the NL was going to contract from 12 to 8 teams following the 1899 season and that the Colonels were going to be dropped, and none of the Louisville players moved to Pittsburgh until then.

-- MWE

There are groups of hardcore fans that keep each franchise alive, even in down years.

The small group of hardcore Indians fans did very, very little to keep the franchise alive or in town in the 1970s and 1980s -- unless yelling at Cory Snyder was somehow keeping the franchise alive. Had the Jacobs brothers not bought the Indians, Cleveland probably wouldn't have a team today.

Besides, a place where small groups of hardcore fans that are suddenly surrounded by others with similar laundry that happens to match the laundry of the now successful professional team is the definition of "bandwagon town."

the Browns are the only show in town that can be consistently horrid, and still keep the primary attention of most fans.

I didn't mean to imply Browns fans are bandwagon -- they certainly aren't, although the ferocity of their loyalty has been exaggerated --- there were still home games being blacked out on local TV in the supposed "Golden Era" of Bernie Kosar. Anything local support beyond the Browns is dependent on the success of the team, and even then the fans would be hard pressed to financially support two winners and the Browns.

42. TomH Posted: May 02, 2007 at 02:09 PM (#2352289)

107 miles from Louisville to Cinci via mapquest.

Yes, it's Cinci's AAA town, but most AAA affiliations are not felt THAT strongly, are they?

Lots of other options: Lexington/Frankfurt? Charleston WV? Columbus OH? Buffalo NY?


The AAA relationship isn't all that big. In fact for many years Louisville was the Cards AAA town, but the proximity and strength of ties between Louisvile & Cincy are what makes Louisville a Reds town.

Vlad, not to worry; I can't influence my kids' behavior, never mind MLB's. If the team is successful ($) and doesn't want to change, I don't wanna make them. I was only trying to offer helpful suggestions in the big picture. I know the pain of a local team leaving town (Balt Colts)

ownership that sees the team as more than a welfare check.

I couldn't have said it better myself...*golf clap