I'm an outside Rays fan since about 2004 and have always like to see their games, but since I live in Mexico I haven't gone to any games... but I do think that that "stadium" or "ballpark" has got to go, they need a new house and from what I've heard, their new home will be something else.

Your biggest pool of consumers doesn't want to drive in rush hour on I-275. Solved.

Well, the Trop is horrendous, for starters. Sterile and tacky.

Move to Montreal!

Well, the Trop is horrendous, for starters. Sterile and tacky

true. and the constant annoying noises from the PA aren't helping. And lower the prices on tix/parking/food just to get people in there even if you dont make a profit. converting people into longterm fans should be the priority. Food and beer is more expensive at Trop than at Fenway.

When you are at a baseball game and are trying to watch a flyball or popup, you shouldnt have to track its path around all these catwalks.

I can't blame Tampa fans for this one. I wouldn't be too eager to see the team that beat my team in the World Series either. "Come down to the Trop to see the Phillies, who shattered your hopes and dreams last year!" isn't a good selling point.

Last year, they were 12th in AL attendance with 22,370 per game. Currently, they're up from last year despite not having played through the (typically better drawing) summer months, and despite being located in an area which got the #### kicked out of it during the housing and credit meltdowns. Yeah, things could be better, but they could also be a lot worse.

My one game at the Trop (in 1999, IIRC) was supposed to conclude with a music laser show. As the teams were leaving the field after the 9th, they started filling the dome with smoke for the laser show. By the time my wife and I got to the concourse stairway, it was virtually impossible to see, and it was getting difficult to breathe. Crazy stuff.

I checked on baseball reference, and attendance is up 4,284 per game, which is second best change in baseball. I'm not familiar with historical attendance data, but isn't a 23% increase pretty good, especially since they're still playing in the same mediocre stadium?

Currently, they're up from last year despite not having played through the (typically better drawing) summer months

Would they necessarily be better drawing months in Tampa/St. Pete though? I suppose the kids are out of school, but it's not a situation where the weather is more suitable for outdoor (well, the Trop is indoors) activity in July than in April, like it is in most cities.

I checked on baseball reference, and attendance is up 4,284 per game, which is second best change in baseball. I'm not familiar with historical attendance data, but isn't a 23% increase pretty good, especially since they're still playing in the same mediocre stadium?

That was the increase from 2007 to 2008. The increase in 2009 has only been a couple hundred per game so far over 2008.

Well, the Trop is horrendous, for starters. Sterile and tacky.

Dare I say that this sounds like a statement in agreement of Bud Selig's favorite argument?

It does seem to me that if the best way to build up your attendance is to have a good team, that they should be drawing better right now than they are.

That was the increase from 2007 to 2008. The increase in 2009 has only been a couple hundred per game so far over 2008.

But that 2008 attendance is their average for the entire season, so it's raised by higher attendance over the summer months. According to the chart average 2008 attendance to today was 18,419, and 2009's is 3,706 higher than that.

it's not a situation where the weather is more suitable for outdoor (well, the Trop is indoors) activity in July than in April

In Florida, isn't the weather more suitable for indoor air-conditioned activities in July? Which, conveniently, a Rays game is.

The increase in 2009 has only been a couple hundred per game so far over 2008.

For MLB as a whole, though, attendance per game is down more than 1,500. Some of that is probably seasonal (no summer, 2009 yet), but also, in this economy, even gaining a couple hundred per game could be a pretty big accomplishment.

EDIT: Actually, I think BB-Ref's numbers that I link are over the same # of games, so there's no seasonal affect (or a very small one) there. Attendance is down 1,546 per game over the same period last year. The chart has Tampa's attendance up 4,284 per game. So, Tampa seems like they're doing pretty well compared to last season especially relative to the rest of MLB.

Dare I say that this sounds like a statement in agreement of Bud Selig's favorite argument?

Sadly, that's where the situation is headed. One has to remember, though, that the good people of Tampa/St. Pete fronted MLB this stadium years before they ever had a baseball team - the White Sox used the stadium as leverage for their own new stadium in Chicago, then MLB stood up Tampa/St. Pete in 1993 for an expansion franchise. There's still a boatload of debt still outstanding on the Trop. Supposedly the team's about to release its own study on what it would cost to renovate their current stadium; somehow I don't think the study will conclude it's a viable option.

Sadly, that's where the situation is headed. One has to remember, though, that the good people of Tampa/St. Pete fronted MLB this stadium years before they ever had a baseball team, and there's still a boatload of debt still outstanding on the Trop. Supposedly the team's about to release its own study on what it would cost to renovate their current stadium; somehow I don't think the study will conclude it's a viable option.

as my cab driver to the Dome said: "that place was obsolete the day it opened"

"Come down to the Trop to see the Phillies, who shattered your hopes and dreams last year!" isn't a good selling point.

Do Rays fans look back on 2008 as a season of shattered hopes and dreams? I'd think all things considered they'd be pretty happy with the season. And the selling point is "come see the Rays exact vengeance upon the Phillies".

as my cab driver to the Dome said: "that place was obsolete the day it opened"

For awhile I thought the Trop was just a 1-2 year temporary home until they built a new stadium. Was it always supposed to be the permanent home or did stadium plans fall through?

Do Rays fans look back on 2008 as a season of shattered hopes and dreams?

Of course not. I'm just saying that I can't blame fans for not wanting to see the Phillies again.

As far as getting new customers, #2 is right. The Trop itself has done a lot to appeal to fans, but the commute there is bad. The economy is to blame for the rest, contrary to what officials may think. Most people don't 'absorb' higher gas prices, unemployment, foreclosure, etc. They have little discretionary income. I heard they're looking in Pinellas for a new stadium location. That would help.

I'm surprised no one has made the argument "People in Florida don't care about MLB." I've heard that one on and off. The Marlins sure can't draw many despite having won a couple World Series relatively recently. They didn't even draw that well right after their championship seasons. Of course, one of those seasons was followed by a fire sale, but still...

Your biggest pool of consumers doesn't want to drive in rush hour on I-275.

Not trying to quibble; just curious-is there any MLB venue that isn't very difficult to get to, at rush hour? Atlanta is miserable; you get there on one the country's major north-south conduits, with a jillion people trying to get home, too. What city has a stadium located somewhere where you can add 50,000 paying customers to the roadway into the place, at 7:00?

I'm surprised no one has made the argument "People in Florida don't care about MLB."

I never would have believed this ten or twenty years ago, but years of evidence have convinced me that you're right. Heck, I think you could make a pretty good argument that baseball truly has a large grassroots fan base in only a small handful of cities, and that the support is at best lukewarm pretty much everywhere else.

Even here at a site specifically designed to talk about baseball, there are people far more interested in NBA basketball for Pete's sake. Most of the day-to-day Game Chatters are empty (or close to it), and the NBA Playoffs Thread is now 3,312 posts and going strong, and that season ended ten days ago.

Not trying to quibble; just curious-is there any MLB venue that isn't very difficult to get to, at rush hour? Atlanta is miserable; you get there on one the country's major north-south conduits, with a jillion people trying to get home, too. What city has a stadium located somewhere where you can add 50,000 paying customers to the roadway into the place, at 7:00?

Toronto is pretty good for access. The Rogers Centre is about a 10 minute walk away from Union Station, in downtown Toronto, where the trains and subway lines merge, and just a minute or two off of the QEW. There's even a covered walkway from Union to just outside of the stadium.

A "People in Florida don't care about MLB" argument might have some trouble explaining the Marlins' solid attendance numbers before the first firesale.

Even here at a site specifically designed to talk about baseball, there are people far more interested in NBA basketball for Pete's sake. Most of the day-to-day Game Chatters are empty (or close to it), and the NBA Playoffs Thread is now 3,312 posts and going strong, and that season ended ten days ago.

I don't know how you could conclude that because there is ONE thread dedicated to a certain subject that is 3312 posts long, that somehow trumps all the thousands of baseball-related threads on this forum and thus people on this site are more interested in the NBA than baseball.

A "People in Florida don't care about MLB" argument might have some trouble explaining the Marlins' solid attendance numbers before the first firesale.

Most expansion teams do well the first few years in attendance. The novelty eventually wears off.

"is there any MLB venue that isn't very difficult to get to, at rush hour?"

PNC Park is pretty easy. There are usually only about 15k coming into town for games, and all the people already downtown are fleeing home at that time, so the stacking is minimal.

Most of the day-to-day Game Chatters are empty (or close to it)

I rarely get into those. I think it's a matter of taste. But, in my case, at least, I'm rarely near a computer while watching a game. I never bought a laptop.

I don't know how you could conclude that because there is ONE thread dedicated to a certain subject that is 3312 posts long, that somehow trumps all the thousands of baseball-related threads on this forum and thus people on this site are more interested in the NBA than baseball.

Have a basketball site as good as bbtf and threads like that would be shorter/less common. We've got nowhere else to go!
That said, I (for one) have made a lot more posts over that time on baseball than on basketball (or food or SNL or...)

Most of the day-to-day Game Chatters are empty (or close to it)

For game chatters, most people seem to go to sites with a single team focus. It's not so much that people aren't interested in the chatters, but that they choose to do their chattering elsewhere.

Tampa Bay Rays find small crowds “bewildering”

I guess nobody told them about Little People Appreciation Day.

wrigley is pretty easy to get to even if you live in indiana, all you gotta do is take the train

Turner Field: not so easy. It's almost a mile walk to the nearest train station. There are shuttle buses that run to/from the station, but they get stacked up big time at the end of the game. Parking is so/so, but extremely snarled when leaving. If I drive, I usually park in a satellite lot, which is cheaper, and quicker getting out.

Even here at a site specifically designed to talk about baseball, there are people far more interested in NBA basketball for Pete's sake. Most of the day-to-day Game Chatters are empty (or close to it), and the NBA Playoffs Thread is now 3,312 posts and going strong, and that season ended ten days ago.

It might have more to do with your bright, sunny personality, Joey B.

Getting to and from the Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati isn't too bad. There are sometimes backups of commuters on I75 trying to cross the Ohio river, but for a 7 PM game you can leave late enough that the worst of this is over. I can leave my apartment (10 miles away from downtown) and be parking near the stadium in 20 min if I hit the traffic right.

I will also echo Ryan's comment that getting to Blue Jay's games on the subway was very easy. Toronto handles enough commuters that another 20,000-30,000 isn't that big of a deal. I also found the Metrodome in Minneapolis pretty easy to get to and from if you knew where to park and the fastest ways to get out of the immediate vicinity of the stadium when the game let out. But if you parked in the wrong spot, you could have some trouble.

The biggest problems are in cities where getting to the game forces you to fight your way through a heavy commuter bottleneck. Cities with fast public transit usually are the easiest to get to and from games.

I'm not sure what's going in Tampa, but going by the numbers from #14 and matching them with my experience at the half-dozen Angels games I've been to, I think a big problem might be that even if paid attendance is relatively stable, the number of people actually showing up is likely to be down considerably. I've been very surprised at the number of empty seats at the games I've gone to. Obviously, the announced numbers never match up, but this year the delta seems to be substantially larger.

As to MLB in Florida, I think no city/region really likes a sport if its local franchises are incompetently run (absent some heavy tradition.) That's been the case in Tampa until very recently, and to the extent it hasn't been the case in Miami, that situation has had its own problems. It may be that MLB doesn't work in Florida, but I don't think we can say that based on what's gone on so far IMO.

For game chatters, most people seem to go to sites with a single team focus. It's not so much that people aren't interested in the chatters, but that they choose to do their chattering elsewhere.

Or they are just, you know, watching the game away from the computer.

Or they are just, you know, watching the game away from the computer.

You're obviously not talking about the people who post at this site.

Getting to Camden Yards is pretty easy. For drivers, it's right off the Interstate. For those taking transit, the light rail system goes there (from Penn Station/points north and BWI/points south) and so does the Camden Line commuter rail from DC.

Getting to Camden Yards is pretty easy. For drivers, it's right off the Interstate.

So is Turner Field, but how crowded is the interstate for a 7:10 p.m. game?

I-95 in B'more by 7 isn't usually too bad. There is certainly some satdium traffic but it's not Kenmore Square around the time of a Red Sox game or anything.

+1 to PNC Park being easily accessible at rush hour.

Also, with the MLB numbers being down about 1,500 per game- how much of that is affected by the new ballparks in New York? They're about 15% smaller, so their average crowds could bring the MLB number down by even a few hundred.

Not trying to quibble; just curious-is there any MLB venue that isn't very difficult to get to, at rush hour?

Oakland isn't all that bad. Southbound traffic on 880 is pretty heavy but it still doesn't take all that long; northbound is smooth until you exit; and taking the train is crowded but easy and fast. I wouldn't want to drive to San Francisco for a game, but taking the train is very fast (as long as you don't mind a 10-15 minute walk to the park. I have no idea what people do for that leg if they don't want to walk).

Oakland and San Francisco aren't bad if you take BART; Candlestick was a nightmare no matter how you went. Traffic to the Trop is bad enough that I just won't make the trip from Orlando. It's about 90 miles and I'd have to give myself 3 hours for a 7pm start. If a game started at noon on a weekend, it would be worth the trip.

Easiest one I've driven to was Coors Field. I was staying at a hotel about 10 miles away and gave myself two hours to get there. Drove, parked, bought a ticket, grabbed a snack and was in my seat in about 45 minutes.

Traffic to the Trop is bad enough that I just won't make the trip from Orlando. It's about 90 miles and I'd have to give myself 3 hours for a 7pm start. If a game started at noon on a weekend, it would be worth the trip.

3 hours for a 90 mile trip seems pretty reasonable to me. I live about 45 miles from Wrigley and I have to leave at least 2 hours before a game.

Oakland isn't all that bad. Southbound traffic on 880 is pretty heavy but it still doesn't take all that long; northbound is smooth until you exit; and taking the train is crowded but easy and fast. I wouldn't want to drive to San Francisco for a game, but taking the train is very fast (as long as you don't mind a 10-15 minute walk to the park. I have no idea what people do for that leg if they don't want to walk).

You can take the Muni. I've taken BART from SFO and then the Muni over to the game. Caltrain from the South Bay is also relatively convenient.

I don't think Yankee Stadium is bad. 3 subways lines go right there. The one I'd usually take gets mad crowded but it keeps moving. In my younger days, coming by car down the Major Deegan, the highway would often get crowded but was never so bad that we were really delayed. Those were usually weekend afternoon games; might be different on week nights. Now there's also a Metro-North (regional train) stop but I don't know how convenient it is or if/how it changes the equation.

BTF METS GAME CHATTERS 4 LYFE!!! WHOOO!!

Dodger stadium....worst ever to access for a weekday game...hands down, no argument. You can't train, bus or walk there. You must drive and its basically a mile from the convergence of like 4 freeways..the 5, the 110 and the 101, with the 134 just up the road...its brutal. Then again maybe its improved since the 80's, since that was the last time I was living in America.

Agree Hugh - I hated getting to Dodgy Stadium - cab cost us $50 each way.

The fact that there is a centralized basketball thread is a good thing. It keeps it out of other threads - and it is a great thread - really informative from page one.

You can't train, bus or walk there.

It's L.A. And pretty much the right spot in history--after Judge Doom dismantled the subway, and before they started building new transit systems.

At least now you know why so many people leave early.

1.) It's Florida. There's a bazillion other things to do.
2.) They play in a mausoleum.
3.) The economy, stupid.
4.) The team was horrible until very recently.
5.) I blame Bush.

It's L.A. And pretty much the right spot in history--after Judge Doom dismantled the subway, and before they started building new transit systems.

It's so strange that the place is that close to downtown Los Angeles and yet inaccessible by anything but private vehicle.

I have a theory that fans do not respond well to the teams that try and maximize the "success" cycle and exploit the booms and the busts. I need to think about it some more, but to the fans I have spoken to it seems harder for them to invest emotionlly when they don't feel the product will be maintained through the leaner times.

The seems counter intuitive to the neo-sabrmetric theories on organization building but I'm going to think on it some more.

It is easy getting to Jacobs Field during rush hour as most of the other traffic is going the other way, away from downtown. The only hiccup now is the stupid bridge construction.

It does make sense that a lot of fans are going to be reluctant to put an emotional investment into a team that never has any stability. It's pretty disheartening if your best players are always leaving for greener pastures as soon as they hit F.A. just when the fans are becoming attached to them.

I'm sure this is one of the big reasons why the Oakland A's have plummeted all the way down to the Pittsburgh Pirates level of attendance.

I have a theory that fans do not respond well to the teams that try and maximize the "success" cycle and exploit the booms and the busts. I need to think about it some more, but to the fans I have spoken to it seems harder for them to invest emotionlly when they don't feel the product will be maintained through the leaner times.

I think there's something to that. It doesn't contradict sabermetric thinking per se but it could serve as at least a partial explanation for why teams don't use it as often as some of us think they should.

Signing or otherwise acquiring players who are household names, in theory, puts fans in the seats - even if they're overpriced, overrated, or completely a wrong fit for that team's place in the success cycle. I don't think this is as true as some organizations think it is, and to the extent that there's truth in it, I don't think this principle extends nearly as far down the fan recognition scale as some organizations think it does.

But certainly the perception that some given season is a "rebuilding year" does turn fans off, especially if it's the 4th or 5th such year in a row. I can see this phenomenon unfolding in Baltimore before my very eyes.

It does make sense that a lot of fans are going to be reluctant to put an emotional investment into a team that never has any stability.

Not too long ago it the case that it was mostly the bad and/or low payroll teams that had the high turnover. But high turnover is more or less endemic to almost every franchise now.

I need to think about it some more, but to the fans I have spoken to it seems harder for them to invest emotionlly when they don't feel the product will be maintained through the leaner times.

Do you mean that a fan thinks "I'm not going to support the Rays in 2009, because I'm pretty sure they'll be 100-loss bad in 2012, even if that makes them World Series good in 2015"? That seems really bizarre to me on first blush.

I can see how fans would be once-bitten-twice-shy (the Marlins) or wanting to see a team do it establish they aren't a one-year fluke before they buy tickets (the Rays, for example) but I don't know I've ever heard anyone express your view, either in the general or specfic ways.

But certainly the perception that some given season is a "rebuilding year" does turn fans off, especially if it's the 4th or 5th such year in a row. I can see this phenomenon unfolding in Baltimore before my very eyes.

That happened to the Jays after their World Series wins - it was a combination of having a losing team for the first time in over a decade, the glow wearing off of the SkyDome, a series of teams which were just generally bland and non competetive, and an ownership which obviously didn't want the team (it was acquired as a side effect of the purchase of Labatts by Interbrew). By the time Rogers bought the team, attendance had dropped from 50K to 20K per game.

Do you mean that a fan thinks "I'm not going to support the Rays in 2009, because I'm pretty sure they'll be 100-loss bad in 2012, even if that makes them World Series good in 2015"? That seems really bizarre to me on first blush.

If you let a fan favourite go during 100-loss bad 2012, even though he might want to stay and you've got no hot prospect to hype to replace him, I can see how that would discourage people. Fans of bad teams still like to have someone to root for.

If you let a fan favourite go during 100-loss bad 2012, even though he might want to stay and you've got no hot prospect to hype to replace him, I can see how that would discourage people. Fans of bad teams still like to have someone to root for.

But that's a different point from what MHS is saying. No one denies, so far as I know, that a team will stop drawing during a 100-loss season. But MHS is saying (I think) that fans won't support the team during their glory periods if they imagine fallow ones are ahead.

This seems espcially true for the Rays, because fans have no idea if they'll let Longoria or Crawford (or whoever) go during the bad days, even if they want to stay, because I don't think the Rays have a lot of fan favorites from the past. I doubt anyone was really upset when they dealt Rolando Arrojo or Fred McGriff.

Do you mean that a fan thinks "I'm not going to support the Rays in 2009, because I'm pretty sure they'll be 100-loss bad in 2012, even if that makes them World Series good in 2015"? That seems really bizarre to me on first blush.

I don't think it's that measured. This is really the first year the Rays fans have to be optimistic comming into the season, and even there many publications where picking them for third. I think it's understandable that they didn't flock to the gate in advance, and are taking there time to deciede if they want to be emotionally invested in this team.

My theory is that teams like the rays attendence maybe have a higher correlation to w% than other teams, and they didn't come firing out of the blocks this year and are in a position there fan base is used to being in: behind BOS and NYY. They didn't really supplement there club during the offseason: Pat Burell not withstanding. The lack of attendence pop isnt' suprising to me. I also would expect there pop would disapaite faster than most teams due to there lack of history supporting the product.

But MHS is saying (I think) that fans won't support the team during their glory periods if they imagine fallow ones are ahead.

It's more accurate to say I think they will take a wait and see attitude, because the fans aren't sure still, what the quality ofthe product will be. If they are in a dog fight for the wildcard in August I expect attendence would pop.

The lack of attendence pop isnt' suprising to me.

As noted by Good Cripple Hitter in post #13, the Rays are up by almost 4K a game over the same point last season. That's a pretty decent pop. The major problem seems to just be the Rays' ownership having ludicrously large expectations for the level of increase - their idea of a 10K per game attendance bump in a single season is definitely on the optomistic side for any franchise.

Actually, I'm looking at the attendence for the rays games and really they aren't drawing for midweek games. Mid to high teens rather than 25-30k for weekend games.

That mightbe a sign that there fan base just isn't dedicated to the product yet. Dedication takes time to build especially since the stadium isn't in the downtown area of a huge metro area.

It's more accurate to say I think they will take a wait and see attitude, because the fans aren't sure still, what the quality ofthe product will be.

Ok, I agree with that. But I don't think it's "counter intuitive to the neo-sabrmetric theories on organization building" or, really, any theories on organization building.

Fans like winning teams, and if a team wins more, they turn out more. There's probably an initial "jump" at first sucess*, and after that it is probably more gradual.

(*As the Rays had, their average went up 5,200 a game last season)

Actually, I'm looking at the attendence for the rays games and really they aren't drawing for midweek games. Mid to high teens rather than 25-30k for weekend games.

That mightbe a sign that there fan base just isn't dedicated to the product yet. Dedication takes time to build especially since the stadium isn't in the downtown area of a huge metro area.

It could also be a sign that it's still the school year, and those games will gain attendance once families don't have to worry about getting their kids up at 7:00 the next morning.

Fans like winning teams, and if a team wins more, they turn out more.

Sure, but I'm also saying a team that emphisizes the boom/bust approach is going to have this in greater extremes, as there isn't a ton of brand loyalty.

Heck, I think you could make a pretty good argument that baseball truly has a large grassroots fan base in only a small handful of cities, and that the support is at best lukewarm pretty much everywhere else.

That seems right, but then if you examine it a bit more closely, with the one obvious exception in Chicago (where the park is half of the draw), the only teams that consistently draw well are the ones who are perennial contenders: Yanks, Red Sox, Mets, Dodgers, Cardinals, Angels and Phillies. You'll also notice that these teams are either in our largest metro areas or have an exceptionally strong regional fan base (Sox and Cardinals), and that with the exception of the Angels, their cities all have strong baseball traditions going back to the 19th century.

But even with those seven teams, let them sit in the second divison for a decade or so like the Pirates or the Orioles, and see what'd happen to that support. Even the Dodgers and the Yankees have had big attendance drops in those few stretches where they were out of contention for more than a year or two. And during between 1961 and 1966 the Red Sox never even drew a million. So while it's easy to say where the fan base is greatest today, it's hard to really tell which came first, the chicken or the egg.

The Phillies are perennial contenders?!?

It's been a long time coming. Youngsters, please appreciate the significance of the one playoff win in the first 94 years of their existence.

As noted by Good Cripple Hitter in post #13, the Rays are up by almost 4K a game over the same point last season. That's a pretty decent pop.

I don't think that's a good pop at all. Consider at this point last year, most fans hadn't bought into this team yet. There were still considered kind of flukey and not many were sure they would compete all year. It was later in the year that the team started getting large walk up crowds. You would have thought that would have carried over this year with at least a 4,000 increase in season ticket sales, but apparently this isn't the case.

I'm sure the economy has something to do with this as the failure of the Rays to cultivate their fan base with a decade of incompetence. Still, if I were management, I would be a bit baffled as to why fans aren't coming out a bit more.

The 1990-92 Braves would seem to be a reasonable point of comparison. Years of wretchedness followed by an inspiring run to a pennant.

Braves
1990: 980,129
1991: 2,140,217 (+118%)
1992: 3,077,400 (+44%)

Rays
2007: 1,387,603
2008: 1,811,986 (+31%)
2009: 2,112,172 (+17%) (This is giving credit for maintaining the 3,706 per game increase quoted above.)

Maybe there's something structural about the Braves' situation that makes it different, but I can't really see what it would be. Perhaps the Braves simply connected better with their city in '91, but that seems a circular way to explain the Rays' failure to do so.

(FWIW, the Braves have more or less maintained the boom in attendance- over 2.5M last year in a non-contending season.)

Still, if I were management, I would be a bit baffled as to why fans aren't coming out a bit more.

Maybe I just have low expectations, but the Rays were up 5,200 per game for the whole season last year, and they're up 4,000 per game to this point this season. That's a huge jump in two seasons, I don't know how much more you can expect.

What the Rays need to avoid is the low, low crowds. In 2008 more than 15% of their schedule drew 13,000 or fewer fans. And three were under 10,000. So far they've not had any under 10,000, and only three under 13,000.

I don't think that's a good pop at all. Consider at this point last year, most fans hadn't bought into this team yet. There were still considered kind of flukey and not many were sure they would compete all year. It was later in the year that the team started getting large walk up crowds. You would have thought that would have carried over this year with at least a 4,000 increase in season ticket sales, but apparently this isn't the case.

I'm sure the economy has something to do with this as the failure of the Rays to cultivate their fan base with a decade of incompetence. Still, if I were management, I would be a bit baffled as to why fans aren't coming out a bit more.

The problem is that a raw increase makes the Rays' improvement look worse than it is because if they HADN'T turned the corner and won the pennant last year they almost certainly would have LOWER attendance this year than last.

In 2006, the year after winning a surprising World Championship, the Chicago White Sox saw average per-game attendance increase by about 7,600. In 2006, overall MLB attendance went up by about 500 per-game, so the White Sox beat the MLB average by about 7,100 fans per game.

In 2007, following a surprising AL pennant, the Detroit Tigers saw average per-game attendance increase by about 5,600. In 2007, overall MLB attendance went up by about 1,400 per game, so the Tigers beat the MLB average by about 4,200.

In 2008, following a surprising NL pennant, the Colorado Rockies saw average per-game attendance increase by about 3,800. In 2008, overall MLB attendance declined by about 300 fans per game, so the Rockies beat the MLB average by about 4,100.

So far, in 2009 (see my link in #14), the Rays have seen attendance increase by over 4,100. So far in 2009 (see the same link), overall MLB attendance is down by nearly 1,600 per game. So, the Rays are beating the MLB average by 5,700.

Obviously you can nit-pick the above numbers to death; this is a very crude analysis. But, controlling for the economy, I think the Rays have seen more improvement than the last two pennant winners. They're showing less gain than the White Sox did in 2006, but the White Sox actually won the World Series and play in a bigger city. If the Rays are disappointed by their small crowds, I think it's most likely that #64 has the right answer: they were expecting too much.

The Phillies are perennial contenders?!?

I'm talking about the time since they finally started opening their pockets and it became clear that they intended to compete with the Mets and the Braves. They also drew very well in the 70's and early 80's at the Vet, so it's not just a Citizens Bank thing.

It's been a long time coming. Youngsters, please appreciate the significance of the one playoff win in the first 94 years of their existence.

At the time of the last New York Subway Series, I dug through the record books to see how many "Sewer Series" I could come up with in the pre-division era, where both teams from the same city finished last in the same year. For the record, here they are:

New York (0)

St. Louis (0)

Chicago (1) - 1948

Boston (3) - 1906, 1922, 1929

Philadelphia (9) - 1919, 1920, 1921, 1936, 1938, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1945.

Just to rub it in, in 1936, 1940 and 1942, the Eagles finished last as well, and were so pitiful that they had to merge their roster with the Steelers in 1943, becoming known as the "Steagles," whose logo was an Eagle dumped in a vat of molten steel.

So yeah, I think I know where you're coming from, Crispix.

#73 and #74, you make good points, but I think you're overlooking the comparison of attendance figures at this point in time. Having a major bump over attendance at this point in June isn't that big a deal because by last June, the Rays were only starting to draw good crowds. Unless the Rays attendance goes up by quite a bit more this year to match the increase in crowds the Rays experiences last August and September, the Rays could possibly draw fewer people this year than they did last year. Right now they are only averaging about 200 more fans a game than they did for the entire 2008 season.

The owners also have a big ulterior motive - isn't their new park on hold again? If so then saying 'we have terrible fan support' becomes a lot more useful in negotiating with the city, and in getting other cities to start making stupid offers to get the team.

I find myself agreeing with MHS, teams take a while of sustained success to build attendence, and needs a history. The Braves have history so it was easy for them to bring back the fans in good years, the Rays do not have history and don't have fans. People do not want to follow a team like the Marlins that win one year and dump and just try to maximize the every five years having a surprise team with nobody on the roster from the last success.

Rays shouldn't be panicking yet for many reasons mentioned here, they weren't going to sell out every game no matter what, but they very much look to be on a pace to break 2mil (contenders will of course have better average attendence in September and probably August and that is where they should be worried/focused on. If the Rays win the wild card or somehow the division, they easily reach 2.2, or better)