Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, June 13, 2014

Bandwagoners? Study shows Oakland A’s fans have third-highest “win sensitivity”

“Emory Sports Marketing Analytics released a study this week that ranked Major League Baseball fan bases in a variety of ways, including “win sensitivity.”

Not sure how scientific this study is but there you have it.

The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: June 13, 2014 at 04:59 PM | 52 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: oakland a's

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. A triple short of the cycle Posted: June 13, 2014 at 05:47 PM (#4725453)
No.
   2. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: June 13, 2014 at 05:49 PM (#4725459)
Yes!
   3. McCoy Posted: June 13, 2014 at 05:58 PM (#4725465)
Maybe?
   4. Nasty Nate Posted: June 13, 2014 at 06:05 PM (#4725470)
Tusk!
   5. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: June 13, 2014 at 07:09 PM (#4725545)
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious;
   6. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: June 13, 2014 at 07:32 PM (#4725566)
I got interested in baseball again because of the 2000 A's and Bill King on the radio. So I guess I'm a bandwagoner.
But I've stuck with them ever since, so I guess I'm not all that "win sensitive."
(During that time, the A's are 1-6 in the ALDS. The win was a sweep, and all six of their losses were in the fifth game of a best-of-five series. Eesh.)
   7. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: June 13, 2014 at 07:44 PM (#4725571)
It pains me to admit it, but the Nationals would be a lot higher up on this list if you could properly factor for fans of the opponent.

When we were losing 100 games a year, the other team would frequently have more fans in the park than we did.
   8. 'Spos Posted: June 13, 2014 at 08:40 PM (#4725613)
...if you could properly factor for fans of the opponent.


Yeah, there's the rub. Rays, Jays & Orioles are all subject to Sox & Yankees fans.
   9. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: June 13, 2014 at 09:05 PM (#4725623)
Makes sense. The less hardcore, general baseball/sports fans have two teams to pick and choose from, and of the two the A's offer the lesser ballpark experience and have fewer media/marketing resources to keep people engaged. If they're not winning, or playing a popular team, there's not much drawing those folks to the ballpark, or even drawing their attention -- whereas even when the Giants weren't good a few years ago, the park still brought people in, their radio station still talked about the team constantly, and the organization was borderline-OTT with constant special ceremonies honoring old players & teams. Plus all the other stuff to do in the area.
   10. cardsfanboy Posted: June 13, 2014 at 09:33 PM (#4725643)
I just wonder if the A's lack of continuity hurts them. I'm talking about that they don't have anybody who stays on the team for more than four years, that the fans can identify with. The most visible/well known A' is Billy Beane.
   11. cardsfanboy Posted: June 13, 2014 at 09:34 PM (#4725645)
wrong thread
   12. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: June 13, 2014 at 09:54 PM (#4725654)
I think fans identify with good players, largely regardless of tenure. Puig is way more important to the Dodgers fanbase than say Ethier; Pujols + Trout more than Aybar (he's still there right?), etc. In Oakland, Crisp, Reddick, Cespedes, Moss are all very popular, and A"s fans still revere Chavez, the big 3, guys from that era.

Also, Id be surprised if the A's are particularly exceptional in their 'lack of continuity'.
   13. cardsfanboy Posted: June 13, 2014 at 10:07 PM (#4725662)
I think fans identify with good players, largely regardless of tenure.


Superstars, sure. But I just think people like to see and "know" the players on their team. If a casual fan can't identify 5 or 6 players because they aren't there long enough to enter the consciousness, I think it hurts gaining steam for establishing a fanbase.
   14. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: June 13, 2014 at 10:42 PM (#4725687)
Also, Id be surprised if the A's are particularly exceptional in their 'lack of continuity'.

Doubt it.
Though it might be a little soon to know with the current bunch, because I think Crisp is the only constant in the starting lineup just since April 2012.
Among the pitchers, Milone Cook Doolittle are still with the team, Parker & Griffin are hurt, Straily and Scribner are at AAA, and everybody else is gone.
   15. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: June 13, 2014 at 11:02 PM (#4725693)
[13] That may be, but good players, and good results, are far, far more important.

[14] I think roster churn is more common these days then folks assume, though I'll concede that oak had a pretty high level in the post big 3 years, earning a rep that has stuck. Going back to the above point, I just don't think retaining mark Ellis or Kurt Suzuki would really make much difference to 'fan consciousness' compared to winning.
   16. boteman Posted: June 13, 2014 at 11:26 PM (#4725698)
I was visiting my parents in D.C. on September 29, 2005 when Ccomcast SportsNet was covering the announcement that the Expos were moving to D.C. which I gobbled up with great anticipation. During the subdued interviews Frank Robinson was asked the obvious question about the poor attendance in Montreal, to which he very matter-of-factly replied that if the Nats put a winning "product" on the field they will draw fans, if not the fans will stay away. So the smarter people in MLB know this basic fact, it's not a secret.

I believe such articles are written by writers who are at a loss for better material.
   17. Roger McDowell spit on me! Posted: June 13, 2014 at 11:31 PM (#4725699)
I agree with results matter a lot more, but don't discount the continuity factor - makes a difference when the team across the Bay from you still has very recognizable and popular players like Posey, Cain, Lincecum, Panda, Bumgarner and Romo still with the team from 2010 (and many of those were there even earlier). Doesn't even count bit players like Lopez and Affeldt who have also been around that long.
   18. TerpNats Posted: June 13, 2014 at 11:55 PM (#4725706)
Uh, it was Sept. 29, 2004.

The A's problem is that until they get over a hump, their fans will be skeptics. That one ALDS win came against Minnesota; against the Tigers, Bosox or Yanks, they're 0-6. It's the same old story in the Beane era over and over again. At least the Rays got over that hump by beating Boston and reaching the World Series in 2008.
   19. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: June 13, 2014 at 11:56 PM (#4725708)
I was visiting my parents in D.C. on September 29, 2005 when Ccomcast SportsNet was covering the announcement that the Expos were moving to D.C. which I gobbled up with great anticipation.
Nitpick: 2005 was actually the first year for the Nats in D.C., not 2006.

   20. cardsfanboy Posted: June 13, 2014 at 11:57 PM (#4725709)
[13] That may be, but good players, and good results, are far, far more important.


Absolutely agree. Current record is probably the single most important factor in attendance/popularity.

I think roster churn is more common these days then folks assume, though I'll concede that oak had a pretty high level in the post big 3 years, earning a rep that has stuck. Going back to the above point, I just don't think retaining mark Ellis or Kurt Suzuki would really make much difference to 'fan consciousness' compared to winning


I'm under the impression that roster churn was a lot more common in the past than people believe also. But yes today's rosters do have significant amount of churn, even among the contenders (see Toronto, Oakland etc) but among year in, year out contenders, Oakland has probably the most churn. I think that colors the fans perception of the teams competitiveness going into the season, I think it makes it difficult for the fans to get excited about an 0-0 team.
   21. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: June 14, 2014 at 12:11 AM (#4725711)
[17]OK, but the 2010 Giants won the world series, and the 2010 A's went .500. There's a reason more of those Giants got retained that has nothing to do with payroll-- it was a much better group of players.

And in terms of Giants/As generally, I'd rank the media/marketing aspect waaaay ahead of 'continuity'
   22. Walt Davis Posted: June 14, 2014 at 12:32 AM (#4725717)
Not sure if you folks are misinterpreting the article's claim or not.

Their model looks at sensitivity to price and wins (as a measure of quality). They are not saying that wins don't matter, they are saying some team's fans are more sensitive to wins (i.e. the win effect is larger).

Not vouching for their analysis of course and they seem to overlook the main flaw with their work. Do you know what team has the lowest win sensitivity? That's right, Yankee fans. Hilarious. The issue of course is that the data cover 1998-2013. If I added right, the Yanks won 1450 games over those 16 seasons. They never fielded a losing team, made the playoffs 14 times, won 4 WS and made the WS two more times. The model shows no win sensitivity for Yankee fans because there is very, very little variation in win% for the Yanks in this period. Last year, missing the playoffs, attendance was down 10% from 2012; this year it's so far stable with 2013.

Anyway, clearly you can't test the win sensitivity of fans for teams that, over the period of observation, had low variation in win probabilities. It's also not clear if they added a playoff effect which would seem an obvious thing to do. Going from 81 to 87 wins generally meant nothing in the AL East or AL West but could have been huge in the other divisions.

Other "insensitive" fans include the Cards (always winning), Red Sox (always winning) and Marlins (almost always losing). The Marlins are double-whammied in that 1998 is the year after they won the WS so they start this period at a high level. The year after the 2003 WS, attendance 30% for the next two years before dropping back. Hopefully they controlled for new stadiums as the Marlins saw a good bump that year too. Above 500 so far this year, they are up 10% on last year's average.

If there's a surprise it's that the DBack fans are 26th in win sensitivity. That team has had some real ups and downs. Generally quite good at the start, including the 02 WS, they lost 111 in 04, made the playoffs again in 07, lost 90+ in 09-10, made the playoffs again, then were 500 for two seasons. You see the expected jump in 07-08 but not really for 11-12 ... but still 25-30% below where they were from 99-03.

The Astros come in at only #8 ... as noted in the Mets-Astros thread, their attendance dropped to half what it was in the early 2000s and still needs to grow 50% to get back to 2008 levels. I suppose though a model would predict a larger drop off for three straight 100+ loss seasons.
   23. Random Transaction Generator Posted: June 14, 2014 at 12:33 AM (#4725718)
Yeah, there's the rub. Rays, Jays & Orioles are all subject to Sox & Yankees fans.


True, but it's payback from the 1990s when Jays fans would invade Detroit and Cleveland and outnumber the local fans there.
My parents used to make the trip during the Jays heydays because it was easier/cheaper to make the drive and buy a good ticket in DET/CLE than it was to get one in Toronto.
   24. Roger McDowell spit on me! Posted: June 14, 2014 at 01:01 AM (#4725725)
21- I almost said that about the quality of those players but got engrossed in the Cup finals. And I agree about the marketing aspects; KNBR does a great job pushing Giants programming and the A's don't have a partner that does that for them. Add in the turd of a ballpark and an owner that consistently says he wants to move and those things add up to more. But it also doesn't help that the team that is a BART ride away has the ability to keep guys around. The A's are going to be tested in that regard soon as Cespedes will be a free agent after next season and other popular players like Moss and Donaldson get expensive thru arb.
   25. stevegamer Posted: June 14, 2014 at 01:01 AM (#4725726)
Philadelphia fans as most sensitive to winning & losing - completely unsurprising.
   26. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 14, 2014 at 01:13 AM (#4725730)
Rays, Jays & Orioles are all subject to Sox & Yankees fans.

We're carrying the whole division on our backs.
   27. Roger McDowell spit on me! Posted: June 14, 2014 at 02:31 AM (#4725739)
Wondering if Repoz is lamenting the blown Bandwagonesque lead in...
   28. cardsfanboy Posted: June 14, 2014 at 02:48 AM (#4725743)
Not vouching for their analysis of course and they seem to overlook the main flaw with their work. Do you know what team has the lowest win sensitivity? That's right, Yankee fans. Hilarious. The issue of course is that the data cover 1998-2013. If I added right, the Yanks won 1450 games over those 16 seasons. They never fielded a losing team, made the playoffs 14 times, won 4 WS and made the WS two more times. The model shows no win sensitivity for Yankee fans because there is very, very little variation in win% for the Yanks in this period. Last year, missing the playoffs, attendance was down 10% from 2012; this year it's so far stable with 2013.


To be perfectly honest, I stopped looking at their study the second they limited it to 1998 to present. That isn't a sufficient length of time to do any actual research. Without establishing a baseline or historical tendencies to compare it relative to history, it's not a serious study. With their limit it's just a fun exercise. Nothing wrong with that, but I'm not going to focus on their limits in any criticism and instead concentrate on potential causes of variances in their limited info.
   29. zachtoma Posted: June 14, 2014 at 03:20 AM (#4725746)
I think a lot of it might be just that the ballpark experience in Oakland is so dreadful. I went once and I wouldn't go again. On the other hand, I was in San Diego this weekend and if I lived there, I'd probably drop in on games every week regardless of how bad the team was.
   30. boteman Posted: June 14, 2014 at 03:45 AM (#4725749)
1) I know full well that the Expos move was announced in 2004. Just YOU try thinking on a beer-besotted brain. Plus, typos, or sumpin.

2) It's a fluff piece, so I'm treating it as such.

3) Better a band-wagoner than a Lyle Waggoner, amirite???
   31. PreservedFish Posted: June 14, 2014 at 04:02 AM (#4725750)
I went once and I wouldn't go again.


Seriously, you wouldn't go again? It's a beautiful day and the A's are playing the Angels in September and it's an important game in the division and I have tickets and I'm like, "hey, zachtoma, let's go watch this game!" and you'll decline?
   32. Poster Nutbag Posted: June 14, 2014 at 04:23 AM (#4725751)
The article was written by the same guy who wrote an entire article complaining about the giants score being live tweeted by 95.7 The Game.

There has got to be better #### to write about as far as Bay Area baseball goes, but apparently the Bay Area Sports Guy disagrees.

I've also noticed a strong bias as far as the two teams go coming from this writer. In fact, the more of his articles I read, the less I find myself caring for what he's putting out there. Again, with all the excitement of the two teams in the Bay Area his season, there have got to be better things to cover.
   33. JE (Jason) Posted: June 14, 2014 at 10:51 AM (#4725784)
Current record is probably the single most important factor in attendance/popularity.

It's really the prior year's record, at least for teams that went deep into the postseason.
   34. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 14, 2014 at 11:04 AM (#4725785)
Current record is probably the single most important factor in attendance/popularity.


It's really the prior year's record, at least for teams that went deep into the postseason.

Prior season's record and offseason big name free agent acquisitions for pre-season sales, current record compared to pre-season expectations for walk-ups and StubHub.
   35. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 14, 2014 at 11:45 AM (#4725796)
I'm under the impression that roster churn was a lot more common in the past than people believe also.

At the bottom of the roster, sure. With no guaranteed contracts, you were gone the second they had someone a tiny bit better.

But superstars and stars had more continuity. Look at the HoFers from the 40's through 60's. A large number spent 90+% of their career with one team. DiMaggio, Williams, Musial, Mantle, Aaron, Banks, Bench, Schmidt, Snider, Clemente, Kaline, Whitey Ford, Gibson, Brooks Robinson were all one-team guys. And a lot of the guys who weren't one-team, only played a few forgettable seasons with someone else at the end: Killebrew, Berra, Mays, Mathews.

The guys who changed teams in their prime were pretty rare: Frank Robinson, Joe Morgan.
   36. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 14, 2014 at 12:40 PM (#4725827)
Taking it back from 1900 to the end of the reserve clause era, these Hall of Famers who elected for their playing careers had significant seasons with more than one team after having been traded prior to 1975. It's a longer list that I would have suspected.

Grover Cleveland Alexander
Home Run Baker**
Jim Bunning
Steve Carlton
Jack Chesbro
Mickey Cochrane***
Eddie Collins**
Stan Coveleski
Joe Cronin
Kiki Cuyler
Johnny Evers
Rick Ferrell
Elmer Flick
Jimmie Foxx***
Frankie Frisch
Joe Gordon
Goose Goslin
Burleigh Grimes
Lefty Grove***
Chick Hafey
Harry Heilmann
Billy Herman
Harry Hooper****
Rogers Hornsby
Waite Hoyt****
Ferguson Jenkins
George Kell
George Kelly
Ralph Kiner
Chuck Klein
Nap Lajoie
Freddie Lindstrom
Heinie Manush
Rabbit Maranville
Rube Marquard
Willie McCovey
Joe McGinnity
Joe Medwick
Johnny Mize
Joe Morgan
Herb Pennock** AND ****
Gaylord Perry
Eddie Plank
Robin Roberts
Frank Robinson
Edd Roush
Red Ruffing
Babe Ruth
Nolan Ryan
Red Schoendienst
Joe Sewell
Al Simmons***
Tris Speaker
Arky Vaughan
Rube Waddell
Paul Waner
Hoyt Wilhelm
Vic Willis
Hack Wilson
Early Wynn
Cy Young

**Part of Connie Mack's first salary dump
***Part of Connie Mack's second salary dump
****Passengers on Harry Frazee's express trains out of Boston
   37. cardsfanboy Posted: June 14, 2014 at 01:23 PM (#4725860)
But superstars and stars had more continuity. Look at the HoFers from the 40's through 60's. A large number spent 90+% of their career with one team. DiMaggio, Williams, Musial, Mantle, Aaron, Banks, Bench, Schmidt, Snider, Clemente, Kaline, Whitey Ford, Gibson, Brooks Robinson were all one-team guys. And a lot of the guys who weren't one-team, only played a few forgettable seasons with someone else at the end: Killebrew, Berra, Mays, Mathews.


That covers 50 years of baseball. In the past 30+ years, the following have been one team guys, Bagwell, Biggio, Ripken, Gwynn, Jeter, Chipper, Rivera, Puckett, Edgar,Trammell, Whitaker Bernie Williams, Mattingly, Larkin, etc. (and of course several more current guys like Tulowitzki, Mauer, Molina, Votto, Pedroia, Braun, Kemp, McCutchen etc..who's status might change in the coming years)

I agree, that churn is still more likely than it was in the past, I just don't think it's as stable as people thought it was. For all the talk about how free agency has led to people bolting teams, it really does feel like that trades happen a lot less frequently among big name players than they had in the past. Outside of pending free agent trades of course. When was the last time an elite player under team control (like Frank Robinson) was traded? Arod of course is one example, but there aren't that many players of the caliber of Johnny Mize being traded in their prime while still under control.

Current record is probably the single most important factor in attendance/popularity.


It's really the prior year's record, at least for teams that went deep into the postseason.

Prior season's record and offseason big name free agent acquisitions for pre-season sales, current record compared to pre-season expectations for walk-ups and StubHub.


Didn't really want to get into all the factors. But basically my point was the biggest factor is of course how good the team is perceived to be by the fans. But as the A's have shown, there is still more to it. The crappy stadium is probably a big part of it(although that crappy stadium was averaging over 2.5 mil attendance in the mid 90's, so it can't be all about the stadium) Heck even 7-12 years ago it was challenging 2mil in attendance. They had a few "poor" years and the attendance dropped, and it never rebounded when they started winning again.
   38. Good cripple hitter Posted: June 14, 2014 at 02:03 PM (#4725880)
If A's fans are so win sensitive, why is attendance steady at 21,000? I know all the problems in Oakland, but wouldn't attendance only going up 422 per game in the wake of two straight division championships be a sign that the A's are pretty win insensitive?
   39. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 14, 2014 at 02:07 PM (#4725885)
That covers 50 years of baseball. In the past 30+ years, the following have been one team guys, Bagwell, Biggio, Ripken, Gwynn, Jeter, Chipper, Rivera, Puckett, Edgar,Trammell, Whitaker Bernie Williams, Mattingly, Larkin, etc

More like 35-40. Also, you're including quite a few non-HoFers in your list, including guys like Bernie Williams and Mattingly that pretty clearly don't belong.

I could have added Pee Wee Reese, Rizzuto, Jackie Robinson, Drysdale, Koufax, Doerr, Ott. The old days also seemingly had an awful lot of guys with all but one or two seasons with their main club (Spahn, Marichal, Gomez, Greenberg, Newhouser). I think this adds to our perception, b/c nobody remembers the last gasp years, and we view these guys as lifelong members of one team.

But yes, the gap is there, but it's not a chasm.
   40. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: June 14, 2014 at 02:13 PM (#4725891)
Off-topic, but I noticed Herb Pennock was part of two different fire sales (Mack and Frazee) & I didn't know much about him.
Apparently he had a beautiful pitching motion, everybody talked about it. According to his SABR bio,

The next best tribute to Pennock came in 1939, when former player Ethan Allen was made the head of the newly created motion picture division of the rival National League. After accepting the position, Allen added, "The first thing to do is get Pennock back on the mound, so he can be filmed."


Is there any footage of Pennock throwing, anywhere?
   41. cardsfanboy Posted: June 14, 2014 at 02:18 PM (#4725898)
More like 35-40. Also, you're including quite a few non-HoFers in your list, including guys like Bernie Williams and Mattingly that pretty clearly don't belong.


I know it was a nitpick, but I'm fairly certain every player I picked was playing for their team after 1984.



I could have added Pee Wee Reese, Rizzuto, Jackie Robinson, Drysdale, Koufax, Doerr, Ott. The old days also seemingly had an awful lot of guys with all but one or two seasons with their main club (Spahn, Marichal, Gomez, Greenberg, Newhouser). I think this adds to our perception, b/c nobody remembers the last gasp years, and we view these guys as lifelong members of one team.


One of the things that's making it harder to find players having one year with a team, is that players play longer nowadays. Maybe not on average, but in regards to quality players, they have longer careers, so they get moved around a bit more in their "second wind". Something that didn't happen as frequently as in the past (of course the larger number of teams has something to do with that)

   42. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 14, 2014 at 02:32 PM (#4725914)
I know it was a nitpick, but I'm fairly certain every player I picked was playing for their team after 1984.

Right, my point is that if we expanded the old-timers to include non-HoFers we could probably add a bunch more.
   43. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 14, 2014 at 03:20 PM (#4725970)
Here's a list of all the players who played exclusively for one team, with a minimum of 2000 games. If you sort the list according to the year of career start, you'll see 7 players whose careers began prior to 1951, 16 with careers beginning between 1951 and 1974, and 11 with careers beginning after that, including Jeter. So snapper may be onto something, though the list is probably a bit skewed by the fact that up through the 40's very few players remained active much past the age of 35, and if you lowered the requirement to 1500 games, you'd probably see a bigger representation of the pre-WWII era.
   44. cardsfanboy Posted: June 14, 2014 at 03:32 PM (#4725979)
Here's a list of all the players who played exclusively for one team, with a minimum of 2000 games. If you sort the list according to the year of career start, you'll see 7 players whose careers began prior to 1951, 16 with careers beginning between 1951 and 1974, and 11 with careers beginning after that, including Jeter. So snapper may be onto something, though the list is probably a bit skewed by the fact that up through the 40's very few players remained active much past the age of 35, and if you lowered the requirement to 1500 games, you'd probably see a bigger representation of the pre-WWII era.


Add in that there are more teams now, and percentage wise, the past does stomp the recent past.

Here is a report with 1500+ games played and for one team only. (The comments in link 43 were invaluable in showing me how easy it is to create this report...apparently there is a franchise count stat in PI) sorted by first year.

Rk              Player      G From   To   Age          Tm
1            Cap Anson 2277 1 1876 1897 24
-45         CHC
2           Bid McPhee 2138 1 1882 1899 22
-39         CIN
3          Clyde Milan 1982 1 1907 1922 20
-35         WSH
4          Pie Traynor 1941 1 1920 1937 21
-38         PIT
5       Travis Jackson 1657 1 1922 1936 18
-32         NYG
6         Ossie Bluege 1867 1 1922 1939 21
-38         WSH
7           Bill Terry 1720 1 1923 1936 24
-37         NYG
8           Lou Gehrig 2164 1 1923 1939 20
-36         NYY
9    Charlie Gehringer 2323 1 1924 1942 21
-39         DET
10             Mel Ott 2730 1 1926 1947 17
-38         NYG
11         Bill Dickey 1789 1 1928 1946 21
-39         NYY
12        Luke Appling 2422 1 1930 1950 23
-43         CHW
13    Frankie Crosetti 1683 1 1932 1948 21
-37         NYY
14           Stan Hack 1938 1 1932 1947 22
-37         CHC
15        Joe DiMaggio 1736 1 1936 1951 21
-36         NYY
16         Bobby Doerr 1865 1 1937 1951 19
-33         BOS
17        Ted Williams 2292 1 1939 1960 20
-41         BOS
18       Pee Wee Reese 2166 1 1940 1958 21
-39     BRO-LAD
19        Phil Rizzuto 1661 1 1941 1956 23
-38         NYY
20         Stan Musial 3026 1 1941 1963 20
-42         STL
21        Carl Furillo 1806 1 1946 1960 24
-38     BRO-LAD
22       Mickey Mantle 2401 1 1951 1968 19
-36         NYY
23         Jim Gilliam 1956 1 1953 1966 24
-37     BRO-LAD
24         Ernie Banks 2528 1 1953 1971 22
-40         CHC
25           Al Kaline 2834 1 1953 1974 18
-39         DET
26    Roberto Clemente 2433 1 1955 1972 20
-37         PIT
27     Brooks Robinson 2896 1 1955 1977 18
-40         BAL
28      Bill Mazeroski 2163 1 1956 1972 19
-35         PIT
29       Jim Davenport 1502 1 1958 1970 24
-36         SFG
30         Bob Allison 1542 1 1958 1970 23
-35     WSH-MIN
31        Bill Freehan 1774 1 1961 1976 19
-34         DET
32    Carl Yastrzemski 3308 1 1961 1983 21
-43         BOS
33          Tony Oliva 1676 1 1962 1976 23
-37         MIN
34        Ed Kranepool 1853 1 1962 1979 17
-34         NYM
35     Willie Stargell 2360 1 1962 1982 22
-42         PIT
36     Rico Petrocelli 1553 1 1963 1976 20
-33         BOS
37      Mickey Stanley 1517 1 1964 1978 21
-35         DET
38           Roy White 1881 1 1965 1979 21
-35         NYY
39        Johnny Bench 2158 1 1967 1983 19
-35         CIN
40        Bill Russell 2181 1 1969 1986 20
-37         LAD
41     Dave Concepcion 2488 1 1970 1988 22
-40         CIN
42        Mike Schmidt 2404 1 1972 1989 22
-39         PHI
43         Frank White 2324 1 1973 1990 22
-39         KCR
44        George Brett 2707 1 1973 1993 20
-40         KCR
45            Jim Rice 2089 1 1974 1989 21
-36         BOS
46         Robin Yount 2856 1 1974 1993 18
-37         MIL
47         Jim Gantner 1801 1 1976 1992 23
-39         MIL
48       Alan Trammell 2293 1 1977 1996 19
-38         DET
49        Lou Whitaker 2390 1 1977 1995 20
-38         DET
50          Kent Hrbek 1747 1 1981 1994 21
-34         MIN
51          Cal Ripken 3001 1 1981 2001 20
-40         BAL
52       Don Mattingly 1785 1 1982 1995 21
-34         NYY
53          Tony Gwynn 2440 1 1982 2001 22
-41         SDP
54       Kirby Puckett 1783 1 1984 1995 24
-35         MIN
55        Barry Larkin 2180 1 1986 2004 22
-40         CIN
56      Edgar Martinez 2055 1 1987 2004 24
-41         SEA
57        Craig Biggio 2850 1 1988 2007 22
-41         HOU
58     Bernie Williams 2076 1 1991 2006 22
-37         NYY
59        Jeff Bagwell 2150 1 1991 2005 23
-37         HOU
60          Tim Salmon 1672 1 1992 2006 23
-37 CAL-ANA-LAA
61       Chipper Jones 2499 1 1993 2012 21
-40         ATL
62        Jorge Posada 1829 1 1995 2011 23
-39         NYY
63         Derek Jeter 2659 1 1995 2014 21
-40         NYY
64       Jason Varitek 1546 1 1997 2011 25
-39         BOS
65         Todd Helton 2247 1 1997 2013 23
-39         COL
66       Jimmy Rollins 2014 1 2000 2014 21
-35         PHI 
   45. cardsfanboy Posted: June 14, 2014 at 03:45 PM (#4725982)
I was going to do pitchers also, but apparently franchise count is not a stat that is available for pitchers(at least in the pitchers pi page...)

Using the hitters PI I get this list.

300 games as a pitcher for one franchise, one franchise only sorted by last year in the majors. Obviously most of the names at the end of the list won't qualify in a few years, basically they are relievers who are pre-free agent eligible.
(a few relievers made this list--like Bill Simas--who nobody would reasonably put on a list in the discussion we are having of course)
Rk            Player    G From   To   Age      Tm
1         Sam Leever  389 1898 1910 26
-38     PIT
2         Nap Rucker  336 1907 1916 22
-31     BRO
3          Jim Scott  317 1909 1917 21
-29     CHW
4         Guy Morton  317 1914 1924 21
-31     CLE
5        Hooks Dauss  545 1912 1926 22
-36     DET
6     Walter Johnson  936 1907 1927 19
-39     WSH
7       Eddie Rommel  508 1920 1932 22
-34     PHA
8          Red Faber  670 1914 1933 25
-44     CHW
9         Ray Kremer  309 1924 1933 31
-40     PIT
10      Carl Hubbell  535 1928 1943 25
-40     NYG
11         Ace Adams  302 1941 1946 31
-36     NYG
12     Tommy Bridges  424 1930 1946 23
-39     DET
13         Ted Lyons  704 1923 1946 22
-45     CHW
14    Hal Schumacher  451 1931 1946 20
-35     NYG
15        Mel Harder  584 1928 1947 18
-37     CLE
16         Al Brazle  446 1943 1954 29
-40     STL
17        Bob Feller  570 1936 1956 17
-37     CLE
18         Bob Lemon  615 1941 1958 20
-37     CLE
19      Carl Erskine  360 1948 1959 21
-32 BRO-LAD
20      Sandy Koufax  397 1955 1966 19
-30 BRO-LAD
21       Whitey Ford  500 1950 1967 21
-38     NYY
22          Vern Law  516 1950 1967 20
-37     PIT
23      Don Drysdale  547 1956 1969 19
-32 BRO-LAD
24   Mel Stottlemyre  366 1964 1974 22
-32     NYY
25        Bob Gibson  597 1959 1975 23
-39     STL
26       John Hiller  546 1965 1980 22
-37     DET
27        Jim Palmer  576 1965 1984 19
-38     BAL
28   Paul Splittorff  430 1970 1984 23
-37     KCR
29         Rick Camp  414 1976 1985 23
-32     ATL
30      Steve Rogers  406 1973 1985 23
-35     MON
31    Dennis Leonard  313 1974 1986 23
-35     KCR
32        Ron Guidry  380 1975 1988 24
-37     NYY
33    Scott McGregor  357 1976 1988 22
-34     BAL
34       Bob Stanley  637 1977 1989 22
-34     BOS
35    Scott Garrelts  370 1982 1991 20
-29     SFG
36   Mark Williamson  365 1987 1994 27
-34     BAL
37        Bill Simas  308 1995 2000 23
-28     CHW
38        Brad Radke  378 1995 2006 22
-33     MIN
39      Scot Shields  491 2001 2010 25
-34 ANA-LAA
40       Ryan Madson  491 2003 2011 22
-30     PHI
41      Rafael Perez  338 2006 2012 24
-30     CLE
42   Pedro Feliciano  484 2002 2013 25
-36     NYM
43    Luke Gregerson  363 2009 2013 25
-29     SDP
44     Casey Janssen  339 2006 2013 24
-31     TOR
45       Jim Johnson  360 2006 2013 23
-30     BAL
46    Mariano Rivera 1115 1995 2013 25
-43     NYY
47      Glen Perkins  305 2006 2014 23
-31     MIN
48   David Robertson  362 2008 2014 23
-29     NYY
49       Sergio Romo  370 2008 2014 25
-31     SFG 
   46. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 14, 2014 at 04:25 PM (#4726020)
Add in that there are more teams now, and percentage wise, the past does stomp the recent past.

And reducing the requirement to 1500 games, as you did, certainly cements the point.
   47. bobm Posted: June 14, 2014 at 06:27 PM (#4726107)
Add in that there are more teams now, and percentage wise, the past does stomp the recent past.

Add in also free agency.
   48. zachtoma Posted: June 15, 2014 at 12:02 AM (#4726444)

Seriously, you wouldn't go again? It's a beautiful day and the A's are playing the Angels in September and it's an important game in the division and I have tickets and I'm like, "hey, zachtoma, let's go watch this game!" and you'll decline?


You're payin'? Sure!
   49. Ron J Posted: June 15, 2014 at 03:24 PM (#4726640)
When I did a study based on attendance back in the 90s I found that the Twins were the most sensitive to team quality. But because of the lease they had at the time they got less in terms of revenue from any extra fans they picked up.
   50. Baldrick Posted: June 15, 2014 at 04:06 PM (#4726687)
I think a lot of it might be just that the ballpark experience in Oakland is so dreadful. I went once and I wouldn't go again. On the other hand, I was in San Diego this weekend and if I lived there, I'd probably drop in on games every week regardless of how bad the team was.

I've lived in Berkeley for a year now and have only been to a couple A's games, but probably about a dozen Giants games. Don't have a rooting interest for either team, though as a Mariners fan I have a bit of antipathy for the A's. But mostly I just like baseball. So I definitely agree that the Coliseum experience is not nearly as pleasant as a great park like AT&T.

That said, I didn't hate it there. It was still baseball. And one of the games I attended was the Gray-Verlander game from the ALDS, which was an amazing experience. Super intense crowd. Really enjoyable, even with crappy seats.
   51. BDC Posted: June 15, 2014 at 04:11 PM (#4726697)
Interesting, given the stability of the Giants since 2010, that the 2014 Rangers have just four guys who were on the '10 roster (I believe, offhand): Moreland and Ogando (currently on the DL), Colby Lewis (who vanished for a while along the way), and Elvis Andrus, who is now the "dean" of the club at the advanced old age of 25.

But it has oddly the feel of the same club, and of course has the same manager and GM: I think that teams change incrementally enough that it doesn't bother most fans. They're like the axe that's had three handles and three heads, it's still the same axe.
   52. bobm Posted: June 15, 2014 at 07:05 PM (#4726799)
They're like the axe that's had three handles and three heads, it's still the same axe.

Some teams are more like this:

The Deacon's Masterpiece or, the Wonderful One-hoss Shay

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogKey question GMs have to weigh with top World Series free agents | New York Post
(30 - 9:27am, Oct 24)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogFor Royals' Game 3 starter, road to World Series has been long and winding | FOX Sports
(1 - 9:26am, Oct 24)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3415 - 9:17am, Oct 24)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(45 - 9:11am, Oct 24)
Last: haggard

NewsblogWhat's Buster Posey's best trait as a catcher? Here's what his pitchers had to say - Giants Extra
(8 - 9:09am, Oct 24)
Last: Chokeland Bill

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(10 - 8:58am, Oct 24)
Last: Spahn Insane

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 3 OMNICHATTER
(1 - 8:57am, Oct 24)
Last: Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(869 - 8:53am, Oct 24)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogDid Adam Dunn Ruin Baseball? – The Hardball Times
(2 - 8:31am, Oct 24)
Last: Cris E

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(370 - 8:02am, Oct 24)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-23-2014
(14 - 7:43am, Oct 24)
Last: Rennie's Tenet

NewsblogAJC: Hart says ‘yes’ to Braves, will head baseball operations
(16 - 6:46am, Oct 24)
Last: Flynn

NewsblogGleeman: Royals may bench Norichika Aoki for Game 3
(21 - 3:00am, Oct 24)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogRoyals are not the future of baseball | FOX Sports
(39 - 11:25pm, Oct 23)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8370 - 11:22pm, Oct 23)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

Page rendered in 0.7336 seconds
53 querie(s) executed