Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Friday, July 15, 2011

Olson: Petty malice keeps Marvin Miller out of baseball’s Hall of Fame

Damn, Miller was sharp on that Curt Flood HBO special.

Marvin Miller isn’t sure how he’ll spend July 24. He often plans his life day by day, and now that he’s 94, the hours tend to be more precious and slightly less crammed. He’d rather not fill them with anything that causes ulcers.

“Maybe I’ll watch it,” Miller says. “Depends on if I get a better offer.”

We are talking about baseball’s Hall of Fame inductions in Cooperstown, N.Y., the festivities culminating with ceremonies honoring players Roberto Alomar and Bert Blyleven and executive Pat Gillick. It should make for compelling viewing.

...Some of the members of the expansion era committee whose roles are to consider managers, umpires, executives and long-retired players for enshrinement are the type of men Miller once schooled in labor battles. The criteria for non-playing personnel is meant to lean heavily on the impact they had on the sport, which long ago should have made Miller’s inclusion a cinch, if only petty souls would release their malice.

“I’ve never campaigned to be in the Hall and have asked not to be included on any ballot,” Miller says.

“But they continue to put me on the list and then rig the election. Considering who runs the place, not being a part of it gives me credibility as a union leader. That’s how I hope it stays long after I’m gone.”

“I still say I don’t want to belong to any club that would have me,” he says. “Even when I’m dead.”

Repoz Posted: July 15, 2011 at 11:56 AM | 448 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: business, hall of fame, history, media

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.

Page 2 of 5 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
   101. Kiko Sakata Posted: July 16, 2011 at 02:46 AM (#3878806)
Why would teams not want to sell every ticket possible at any price?


It depends on the extent to which a team can discriminate its prices and the price-sensitivity of fans. If I have to sell every ticket at the same price, then I might prefer selling 10,000 tickets at $100 apiece ($1,000,000) than selling 15,000 tickets at $65 apiece ($975,000).

Of course, teams can discriminate on prices to some extent (bleachers are cheaper than box seats, etc.), team revenues per fan are more than just raw ticket prices (parking, concessions, etc.). And it could simply be that the team was wrong about what its' profit-maximizing price should have been.

So, yeah, it's all very, very complicated, of course. But there may be rational economic reasons for setting prices too high to sell out every game.
   102. Kiko Sakata Posted: July 16, 2011 at 02:47 AM (#3878807)
Sorry. Double post.
   103. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 16, 2011 at 03:16 AM (#3878813)
Does it really make sense for teams to build smaller stadiums for the sole purpose of pricing out lower tiers of fans?


As I understand it, the primary idea here is to create scarcity. Create the perception that tickets are always in danger of selling out, and customers will buy more seats farther in advance.

That's correct, and the irony is that this key insight came about rather accidentally, and mostly because of the confluence of two factors, one random and the other ironic: The rebirth of the Red Sox fan base in the late 60's combined with the failure of Tom Yawkey to get a new (and bigger) stadium to replace Fenway Park. Throughout the 70's, the Red Sox decided to make the best of what they'd previously considered a bad bargain, and began pushing offseason advance sales for big games to a degree that no team had ever really done before**, with the sales pitch of "Get Em While You Still Can."*** And as the team got more popular and their Baby Boomer fans went forth and multiplied, they were able to extend this same pitch from "big games" to pretty much all games.

And by the 90's, of course, nearly every team had learned from the Fenway model, and began shrinking their capacities every time a new park was built. The Orioles were the first to do this, and they were quite upfront about wishing to use the smaller capacity of Camden Yards to induce season ticket and other advance ticket sales, and at least for awhile, the strategy both in Baltimore and elsewhere proved wildly successful.

** With the one minor (and temporary) exception of the Milwaukee Braves in the first years after their move from Boston.

*** Along with the previously unheard of concept of selling even advance bleacher tickets, a practice they further goosed in the late 70's by adding a 50% premium to the ticket price for walkup game day sales. Around this same time they all but abolished the concept of the general admission ticket, another key factor in the gradual dismissal of the non-premium fan.
   104. Brian C Posted: July 16, 2011 at 03:34 AM (#3878817)
The short answer is I think that all of these costs and prices are interrelated in one way or another. When you've got seats selling for $75 or $200, it's not hard to make an $8 beer seem relatively benign, and when you're signing free agents to 8 figure contracts, it's relatively easy to justify those $75 or $200 seats.

I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here. Teams overprice concessions because ticket prices are high, also? That seems to be what you're saying but it also seems exceedingly odd.

Concessions are as high as they are mostly because there's a captive audience. You see the same phenomenon at college games where players are paid in tuition money that comes with little marginal cost to the university. You see it at theme parks. You see it at rock concerts, even club shows with obscure bands and cheap ticket prices. You see it at movie theaters where ticket prices are a fraction of pro sports events. Hell, the same principle was used by corporations to gouge workers at the company store back in the day. You set yourself up as the only reasonable option and you can charge what you want. It's extortion, basically, even if consumers are only too willing to play along.

I'm not sure you've thought your position through all that thoroughly. Of all the things you've said in this thread, this easily makes the least sense. Well, except for the part about how Congress would get involved if players were underpaid.

I don't disagree that to a great extent (though with plenty of exceptions, some of which I noted above) demand drives prices, but you can't just leave it at that. Player salaries are driven from the top down, and when a bidding war jacks up the price for a Catfish Hunter or a Reggie Jackson, that (a) adds to the buzz surrounding a team, and (b) helps CREATE the demand that you speak of. And of course the timing also provides a perfect excuse to raise prices; the Yankees raised their top prices 75% between 1974 (the year before Catfish Hunter's arrival) and 1979 (the year after Hunter, Jackson and Gossage powered them to a second straight championship).

Of course you can say that if those key free agents had been earning pre-FA salaries, they would have created an equal number of wins (and an equal amount of demand), but the problem with that is that in the pre-FA era, those three players would've been playing for the A's and the White Sox, or perhaps the A's and the Pirates. The whole dynamic would have been different.

None of this actually has to do with "high salaries", though. All you're really saying here is that a) having good players on the team drives up demand, and b) one way to do this is with free agency. Obviously both of those things are true, but it's not clear to me that high salaries are anything but incidental in this case and have no effect on the underlying dynamics.

Put another way, if those guys were all famous but low-paid, and the Yanks got them in trades, it seems to me that the demand that's created as a result would be exactly the same. Fundamentally, high salaries for those players correlate with their ability and fame but the salaries themselves only have a marginal (at best) effect on those factors. You might as well be arguing that they're good because they're highly paid.

Which goes back to what I and others have been saying all along - you're conflating correlation and causation so often and so fundamentally that you don't even realize you're doing it. High salaries just don't create demand, and I have a hard time believing that anyone thinks they do, unless they've seen marketing campaigns trumpeting high payroll numbers instead of the players who are highly paid.
   105. Lassus Posted: July 16, 2011 at 04:08 AM (#3878827)
This may be the dumbest thing I've seen written on this site.
Your complete lack of economic understanding floors me.

I know it's a lot to ask for basic human decency, but as it was proven by about a dozen or more posters, there were a score of ways to write this without being utterly rude.

Yes it's the internet, but humans still bewilder me.
   106. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 16, 2011 at 04:22 AM (#3878829)
I don't think it's wrong to think that higher salaries might have had something to do with higher ticket prices. Surely there are examples of companies that directly increase the price of their products when the cost of their supplies increases. Grey's Papaya raised its hot dog prices when its rent was raised. Some restaurants in San Francisco have added a surcharge to pay for the Healthy SF initiative. Maybe these businessmen do not themselves understand economics. (I worked for a chef that didn't understand the principle explained in this thread, would increase the price of a dish according to the price of its ingredients, which was not maximizing revenue.) You sometimes see airlines add a fuel surcharge when oil prices are really high. Perhaps they only add this charge because, with highly publicized oil price increases, they can get away with it. But that's the dynamic that Andy has described here.
This (and your same question in 54 and 60 and 64) is actually all confused. Raising prices when the cost of supplies increases is not what we're talking about with regard to payroll. Those examples all relate to a rise in the marginal cost of production, which results in an inward shift of the supply curve (and thus to higher prices). But a rise in player salaries does not affect the marginal cost of production -- whether payroll is $20M or $60M does not affect the cost of an extra ticket -- and therefore does not affect the price.


(Incidentally, the reason that prices have gone up so much faster than inflation is because supply is capped. (Stadium size is, for all intents and purposes, fixed.) Revenue = Price x Quantity sold; you generally don't maximize revenues by maximizing price, but by trading off between price increases and sales increases. You may maximize revenues by lowering prices in order to increase sales. But once you hit the maximum possible quantity supplied, all you can do is raise prices.)
   107. Chicago Joe Posted: July 16, 2011 at 04:36 AM (#3878834)
Those examples all relate to a rise in the marginal cost of production, which results in an inward shift of the supply curve (and thus to higher prices).

Nitpicking here, but the Grey's example is not a rise in the marginal cost of production, but an increase in fixed costs. Supply curve shifts up.
   108. Something Other Posted: July 16, 2011 at 07:12 AM (#3878851)
Does it really make sense for teams to build smaller stadiums for the sole purpose of pricing out lower tiers of fans?

As I understand it, the primary idea here is to create scarcity. Create the perception that tickets are always in danger of selling out, and customers will buy more seats farther in advance. I'm not entirely sure this is true with the modern StubHub-fueled highly liquid secondary market, but then again these stadiums get designed with the consultation of some very smart economic analysts, so it's quite possible they do know what they're doing. Seats 40,000 to 50,000 would be in the low-revenue upper decks anyway, so it's quite possible the teams do come out ahead by sacrificing those seats to increase scarcity and demand for the first 40k. There's also some PR value in being able to claim frequent sellouts vs exposing large swaths of empty seats in the ballpark, and some value in having a more compact thus louder stadium (every study shows people consume more in loud environments, hence the deafening stadium/bar/themepark experience.)
I'd like to see public officials, as long as they're going to be broadly stupid enough to give our money to wealthy team owners to build new ballparks with which to gouge us, at the least insist the new parks containing a certain number of seats, particularly cheap seats. If you want the monopoly, and handouts in the multiple billions, we'd like some decent number of bleacher seats.

Speaking of insane economic policies, it's a shame Obama risked such severe whiplash by moving so spectacularly to the right in his latest offer to the Republicans. What a wimp.
   109. valuearbitrageur Posted: July 16, 2011 at 07:47 AM (#3878857)
I was going to a baseball game the other day, but then realized the price was all out of whack with what the team was spending on payroll, and almost decided not to go. But I went anyways and then they tried to charge me $8 for a beer without any recent free agency signings, so I bought a $5 pepsi instead.

I believe BBTF posters are miles smarter than the average american, which means that so many posters not being able to separate causation and correlation is very disturbing. It's similar to so many americans are hung up on raising the debt limit to ensure America's credit rating remains good, when in the long run America's credit rating isn't determined by credit agencies, it's determined by how much debt it has and it's ability to pay it, which means we are headed for a substantial downgrade at some point if we keep piling up debt.

Baseball salaries are almost completely determined by team revenues. Owners will spend different percentages based on their motivations, but in the long run it's all linked to revenues.Those who want to compete for titles will spend almost every dime, others (certain owners of a certain florida team) will spend some minimum amount and attempt to pocket the rest. But baseball players have no ability to force teams to spend more than they want in aggregate, it's a team vs. team competition that players benefit from but don't control.

If Marvin Miller had failed, team revenues would would likely be as high while salaries much lower, leading only to higher team valuations and greater profits for ownership. It's possible that owners might not feel as motivated to find new/additional revenues, because they wouldn't have to compete for talent in the free agency market. But in the end they'd still be extremely motivated by the valuations of their teams, which are driven by how much revenues/profits were increasing, so I'm pretty sure the $8 beer would be on the menu.
   110. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 16, 2011 at 11:13 AM (#3878866)
I believe BBTF posters are miles smarter than the average american, which means that so many posters not being able to separate causation and correlation is very disturbing.

I guess what I find interesting (it takes more than a BTF argument to disturb me) is that so many people here are completely unwilling to consider the possibility that people's reactions to a situation (high ticket prices) might be entirely different under one set of circumstances (ticket price raises explained by high salaries that are known and publicized) than it might be under another (comparable ticket price hikes with no visible explanation other than "rising costs"). I'm not sure what explains this unwillingness other than the necessity to be comforted by some easy One Size Fits All answer.

As for the mantra of "not being able to separate causation and correlation", that would make a lot more sense if I were saying that the "cause" was (a) direct, and (b) primary, rather than (a) more of a convenient excuse which makes it easier for owners to get away with raising prices, and (b) one factor of many. Contrary to what you all seem to believe, public relations often do matter to owners, and their ability to raise prices without any seemingly rational public explanation is not unlimited.
   111. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 16, 2011 at 11:14 AM (#3878867)
The short answer is I think that all of these costs and prices are interrelated in one way or another. When you've got seats selling for $75 or $200, it's not hard to make an $8 beer seem relatively benign, and when you're signing free agents to 8 figure contracts, it's relatively easy to justify those $75 or $200 seats.

I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here. Teams overprice concessions because ticket prices are high, also? That seems to be what you're saying but it also seems exceedingly odd.

Where is it easier to peddle $25 designer cocktails, in an inexpensive corner bar or in a designer bar in a trendy neighborhood? And where do $8 beers fit in better, a stadium where all seats are priced affordably, or a park where the great bulk of seats are priced only for the upper income strata? Ticket prices influence the crowd's demographics, and demographics are related to people's ability to pay. Of course the captive audience aspect is also a big part of it (I'd actually written that earlier but deleted it for space considerations), but again, it's not the entire answer.
   112. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: July 16, 2011 at 12:42 PM (#3878879)
Y'all think baseball games are expensive? Try taking a family of four to Disney or Universal for a day. I'm sure the inflated prices are a direct result of the outrageous salary demands of the teenagers dressed up as green army men.
   113. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 16, 2011 at 12:59 PM (#3878882)
Y'all think baseball games are expensive? Try taking a family of four to Disney or Universal for a day. I'm sure the inflated prices are a direct result of the outrageous salary demands of the teenagers dressed up as green army men.

Well, on that one I would subscribe to the captive audience theory---the parents are the captives of their kids. I can't think of any other rational explanation for a sentient and non-anthropologist adult human being ever setting foot in one of those places.
   114. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: July 16, 2011 at 01:20 PM (#3878890)
In fairness to Disney, a week there did cost me less than a year of my daughter's college tuition.
   115. CrosbyBird Posted: July 16, 2011 at 01:58 PM (#3878904)
Where is it easier to peddle $25 designer cocktails, in an inexpensive corner bar or in a designer bar in a trendy neighborhood? And where do $8 beers fit in better, a stadium where all seats are priced affordably, or a park where the great bulk of seats are priced only for the upper income strata?

$25 for a cocktail is so extreme as to be a different world. The most expensive that I've seen outside of very expensive restaurants is around $13-14. (Let's exclude gimmick cocktails like The World's Most Expensive Cocktail at the World Bar... $50, but it actually contains liquid gold.)

A pint of beer in Manhattan, in a reasonably-priced bar (not a dive, not an expensive one) is $5-6. $8 is pretty much all "captive audience" fee. I went to a music festival where people bought a $230 ticket for four days of camping and around 9 sets of music, in upstate NY, and they charged $8 for beers.

It may be different in other areas of the country, but concessions in Citifield are pretty reasonable. Two years ago, a beer was $6.50. Player salaries and ticket prices really haven't driven that up at all.

Well, on that one I would subscribe to the captive audience theory---the parents are the captives of their kids. I can't think of any other rational explanation for a sentient and non-anthropologist adult human being ever setting foot in one of those places.

Have you ever been to either of those places? I haven't been to Universal, but I've been to Disneyworld twice and Disneyland once. There are amazing things to see that you don't need to be a child to appreciate. The only thing that makes those places unfun is the number of people that you have to contend with.

EDIT: I googled the Rose Bar, which requires reservations after 9PM. They have $19-20 cocktails. It's a bar in a hotel, though, and an expensive one as well (the cheapest one-night rate is $435).
   116. 185/456(GGC) Posted: July 16, 2011 at 02:28 PM (#3878920)
(T)he gradual dismissal of the non-premium fan.


I dunno about that. If you look at the crowds on a broadcast, they aren't as well dressed as the fans of the past.

I don't really have a horse in the Marvin Miller HOF race, but I find it interesting that he is more famous than Larry Fleisher, who is in the basketball HOF.
   117. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 16, 2011 at 02:43 PM (#3878927)
Where is it easier to peddle $25 designer cocktails, in an inexpensive corner bar or in a designer bar in a trendy neighborhood? And where do $8 beers fit in better, a stadium where all seats are priced affordably, or a park where the great bulk of seats are priced only for the upper income strata?

$25 for a cocktail is so extreme as to be a different world.

Yes, but it's a bigger world than you might imagine, and it's rapidly expanding. I should add that the only reason I know this is that a good friend of mine (a used book dealer) has a son who's earned a solid six figure salary creating and mixing those "muddler" drinks for bars in both the U.S. and Europe.

And if you don't think that box seats costing $75 (like the one I was given in Nats Park last week) and up don't also constitute a "different world," then I guess I wish I lived in yours.

Well, on that one [Disneyland or Universal] I would subscribe to the captive audience theory---the parents are the captives of their kids. I can't think of any other rational explanation for a sentient and non-anthropologist adult human being ever setting foot in one of those places.

Have you ever been to either of those places? I haven't been to Universal, but I've been to Disneyworld twice and Disneyland once. There are amazing things to see that you don't need to be a child to appreciate. The only thing that makes those places unfun is the number of people that you have to contend with.

YMMV and all that, but I've read more than enough descriptions of Disneyland and Disney World to make me want to stay a very safe distance away. AFAIC the transformation from old-style amusement parks to modern admission-charging theme parks is one of those cultural phenomena that definitely checks my enthusiasm for the idea of inevitable human progress.
   118. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 16, 2011 at 02:49 PM (#3878931)
(T)he gradual dismissal of the non-premium fan.

I dunno about that. If you look at the crowds on a broadcast, they aren't as well dressed as the fans of the past.

Obviously that has more to do with shifting sartorial preferences among the well-to-do than anything else. And anyway, the chances are that those grungy looking torn jeans may well have set the owner back a couple of hundred bucks. Stupidity is found in more than one realm.
   119. Brian C Posted: July 16, 2011 at 03:00 PM (#3878936)
Where is it easier to peddle $25 designer cocktails, in an inexpensive corner bar or in a designer bar in a trendy neighborhood? And where do $8 beers fit in better, a stadium where all seats are priced affordably, or a park where the great bulk of seats are priced only for the upper income strata? Ticket prices influence the crowd's demographics, and demographics are related to people's ability to pay. Of course the captive audience aspect is also a big part of it (I'd actually written that earlier but deleted it for space considerations), but again, it's not the entire answer.

Fine, but that's got nothing to do with player salaries.

I guess what I find interesting (it takes more than a BTF argument to disturb me) is that so many people here are completely unwilling to consider the possibility that people's reactions to a situation (high ticket prices) might be entirely different under one set of circumstances (ticket price raises explained by high salaries that are known and publicized) than it might be under another (comparable ticket price hikes with no visible explanation other than "rising costs"). I'm not sure what explains this unwillingness other than the necessity to be comforted by some easy One Size Fits All answer.

It's because multiple people have pointed out multiple examples to you in which things just don't work this way. And all you do is say, "yeah, but" and either a) go off on some unrelated tangent like your demographics argument just now, or b) just repeat yourself.

There's no unwillingness on my part. You're just not making sense. Just because marketing departments and self-interested owners like to use high salaries for PR reasons doesn't mean those salaries are actually affecting the underlying dynamics in any substantial way, and again, you've been given numerous examples to illustrate this.

Basically, you're buying into spin that is designed to deceive you and which has been more or less conclusively debunked, and then accusing us of being narrow-minded for not doing the same. And you're doing it even while acknowledging that it's PR spin!
   120. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 16, 2011 at 03:22 PM (#3878947)
Just because marketing departments and self-interested owners like to use high salaries for PR reasons doesn't mean those salaries are actually affecting the underlying dynamics in any substantial way,

Other than propping up the justification for the whole enterprise, you're absolutely correct.

But tell me this: If those salary laments weren't necessary for the owners to keep jacking up prices, why do you think they keep using them? Why don't they just say "we're raising our prices due to high demand, and because we feel like it"? By your argument that's all they'd really need to do, since according to you, that's all that's really involved.

Of course in the end we're really talking about two unprovable assertions, since no team in history has ever tried to combine 21st century ticket prices with payrolls that are less than 3% of what they've actually come to. Perhaps you can arrange for a 97% drop in the average MLB salary and we can put your fascinating theory to a real world test.
   121. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: July 16, 2011 at 03:22 PM (#3878948)
Basically, you're buying into spin that is designed to deceive you and which has been more or less conclusively debunked, and then accusing us of being narrow-minded for not doing the same. And you're doing it even while acknowledging that it's PR spin!

I don't get the impression that he's really buying the spin as much as he's pointing out that a lot of other people apparently do buy the spin, which he thinks (rightly or wrongly) means that the spin itself has become a contributing factor (if only a minor one) to what the market is willing to bear. Something of a "perception is reality" argument, if I'm understanding correctly.
   122. Swoboda is freedom Posted: July 16, 2011 at 03:37 PM (#3878956)
I don't get the impression that he's really buying the spin as much as he's pointing out that a lot of other people apparently do buy the spin, which he thinks (rightly or wrongly) means that the spin itself has become a contributing factor (if only a minor one) to what the market is willing to bear.

Also, I do think in the beginning of the big rise in prices, in the 70s and 80s, teams did raise prices to meet the rising costs of players. I think as teams have become more sophisticated, this is less true. There are still some large organizations that price on cost plus. I think a lot of the teams saw other teams raise their prices, get away with it, and raise theirs.
   123. Bob Tufts Posted: July 16, 2011 at 04:28 PM (#3878989)
Is now the time to talk about dynamic pricing of tickets and the secondary market which clubs are using to capture more revenue?
   124. Brian C Posted: July 16, 2011 at 05:02 PM (#3879010)
If those salary laments weren't necessary for the owners to keep jacking up prices, why do you think they keep using them?

They don't always. The Cubs raised ticket prices in '09 explicitly on the grounds that it was justified based on their performance in '08 (though speaking of empty PR spin, of course that logic never runs the other way either). College teams raise prices obviously without pegging them to high player salaries. As someone else pointed out earlier, U2 ticket prices have increased dramatically over the past 30 years without anyone saying it has to happen because the band's being paid more (try seeing how far it would get them if they did). You seem to think all the counterexamples given to you are somehow irrelevant or otherwise not worth addressing, but the simple fact that they exist must logically mean that causation does not run the way you think it does.

When you say that this is "propping up the justification for the whole enterprise", I think that's just false. You're taking something that happens sometimes and applying it universally, which is a simple fallacy. And even if it was universal, it doesn't change the fact that the decision to spin it this way is made after and independent to the decision to raise ticket prices in the first place, as even you seem to be acknowledging. Why you can't make the next logical step and see that the 'effect' (a need for PR spin) is caused by the 'cause' (higher ticket prices), instead of the other way around, is puzzling.

Of course in the end we're really talking about two unprovable assertions, since no team in history has ever tried to combine 21st century ticket prices with payrolls that are less than 3% of what they've actually come to. Perhaps you can arrange for a 97% drop in the average MLB salary and we can put your fascinating theory to a real world test

Funny, this sounds suspiciously like "college sports," where ticket prices vary quite widely based on ... you guessed it, demand. Just like MLB!

At any rate, what perfect nonsense this is. At the very least, you could acknowledge that my position is based on actual economics and is supported by many other examples I and others have offered for your evaluation, and yours is based on your own assumptions and hypothetical counterfactuals. You want a "real world test"? Look at the freaking real world.
   125. Howie Menckel Posted: July 16, 2011 at 05:28 PM (#3879028)
I bought a three-game ticket package for Mets games this year. Sitting in exactly the same seat each time, it was $44 for a Marlins game, $55 for a Braves game, and $66 for last night's Phillies game.

The price for that ticket on Stubhub for the Phillies game, last I checked about 10 days ago, was $76. The Braves game market was about the same, and the Marlins game was about $10 cheaper on Stubhub than the $44 list price.

There were some mid-week April and May Yankees games this year, with cold/rainy/gloomy weather, where "get in the door" prices were as low as $1 to $3 for a couple of games, on the day of the game. There must be some Yankees fanatic kids who live a few blocks from the stadium who would love to go to those games, and their parents could afford it. But I suspect they have no idea such an opportunity exists.

I'll probably get some killer seats for a mid-September Mets game for a relatively nominal price. Good way to try seats out, to see if you'd pay the real price next year.
   126. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 16, 2011 at 07:35 PM (#3879073)
If those salary laments weren't necessary for the owners to keep jacking up prices, why do you think they keep using them?

They don't always.

I've never said that they did, but there are countless examples where they have.

The Cubs raised ticket prices in '09 explicitly on the grounds that it was justified based on their performance in '08 (though speaking of empty PR spin,

I don't disbelieve that (I'll believe anything about the Cubs), but I'd like to see some sort of a citation with the exact wording of their announcement, if only out of curiosity and amusement.

of course that logic never runs the other way either).

Naturally enough. In the few cases of actual price reductions, it's usually pegged to a bad economy.

College teams raise prices obviously without pegging them to high player salaries. As someone else pointed out earlier, U2 ticket prices have increased dramatically over the past 30 years without anyone saying it has to happen because the band's being paid more (try seeing how far it would get them if they did).

Concert prices started escalating well before sport events took off, and the nominal explanation was always the rising price of the concert hall, as opposed to the former price of the smaller venues that they formerly performed in. But I put that out there merely as an historical note, since in the case of one time events (or very infrequent events in any one location for any given star performer) the demand is so great that no justification is necessary.

You seem to think all the counterexamples given to you are somehow irrelevant or otherwise not worth addressing, but the simple fact that they exist must logically mean that causation does not run the way you think it does.

No, what I think is that these counterexamples would destroy what I was saying, if what I was saying was that the payroll excuse was universally applied in all cases, and / or that it was the only excuse given, and / or I'd said that demand wasn't the more important underlying factor.

And again, it comes down to my absolute disagreement with the idea that today's ticket prices could be sustained in the face of inflation-adjusted reserve clause era salaries. You seem to be arguing that teams could have kept jacking their prices up year after year the way they have over the past 35 years, just because they felt like it, with no specific explanations that could hold water for a second, and that fans would have just blithely reacted with "Whatever you say, Mr. Billboard", and forked over the money to the extent that they have today. That strikes me as so inherently absurd that it's hard to believe that you even believe that yourself.
   127. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: July 16, 2011 at 08:16 PM (#3879085)
it comes down to my absolute disagreement with the idea that today's ticket prices could be sustained in the face of inflation-adjusted reserve clause era salaries

Of course today's ticket prices couldn't be justified if baseball still had an absolute reserve clause. The quality of the product wouldn't be sufficient to command them.
   128. Brian C Posted: July 16, 2011 at 08:26 PM (#3879091)
I don't disbelieve that (I'll believe anything about the Cubs), but I'd like to see some sort of a citation with the exact wording of their announcement, if only out of curiosity and amusement.

Can't find a citation quite to that effect, but even more amusing, here's an article where Crane Kenney explains that the increases are fair because season ticket holders sell a lot of games on StubHub anyway. There's no mention of player salaries as they pertain to ticket prices - it's an acknowledgment that demand is straight-up fueling the increases.

since in the case of one time events (or very infrequent events in any one location for any given star performer) the demand is so great that no justification is necessary.

Oh. So rock concerts (and college sports, I guess) follow supply-and-demand principles while baseball games don't. I ... see. Interesting.

That strikes me as so inherently absurd that it's hard to believe that you even believe that yourself.

You could at least afford me good faith, right? I mean, I don't pretend to always be polite, but at least I have enough respect for you to assume that you believe what you are saying.

And at this point, unless someone other than you is willing to contribute to this argument, I'd say it's over. I'm tired of banging my head against the wall explaining extremely basic concepts to you while you sit there and argue that baseball is magically exempt from the principles of simple economics that they teach in middle school.

And then for you imply that I'm dishonest and narrow-minded because I'm not overwhelmed by your use of owners' PR spin as your primary evidence? Sorry, but that's just high d****ebaggery. Have a nice day.
   129. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 16, 2011 at 08:46 PM (#3879113)
Oh. So rock concerts (and college sports, I guess) follow supply-and-demand principles while baseball games don't. I ... see. Interesting.

Every fan knows that (at least in theory) college athletes are amateurs. I've never in my (long) life ever seen a single article that deals with a singer's income. And yet I've seen hundreds of articles---possibly over a thousand---and at least a few websites, devoted exclusively to documenting and commenting on baseball salaries. This is like apples and accordions.

That strikes me as so inherently absurd that it's hard to believe that you even believe that yourself.

You could at least afford me good faith, right? I mean, I don't pretend to always be polite, but at least I have enough respect for you to assume that you believe what you are saying.

I'll hopefully try to nip this in the bud by apologizing for the implication of that overly rhetorical remark. You've done nothing in this thread that would have caused me to think that you're not arguing in good faith.

And at this point, unless someone other than you is willing to contribute to this argument, I'd say it's over. I'm tired of banging my head against the wall explaining extremely basic concepts to you while you sit there and argue that baseball is magically exempt from the principles of simple economics that they teach in middle school.

I think I've explained the differences between baseball and amateur sports / concerts enough times for people to judge for themselves who's made the stronger case about baseball.

And then for you imply that I'm dishonest and narrow-minded because I'm not overwhelmed by your use of owners' PR spin as your primary evidence? Sorry, but that's just high d****ebaggery. Have a nice day.

I'll apologize again for the rhetoric, but beyond that, I stand by the substance of that last paragraph. Baseball as an institution is far more subject to the necessities of public relations than noble universities or celebrity rock singers / divas, even if that's not been studied and noted in any economics textbook. And the idea that teams could charge hundreds of dollars for box seats (and over a thousand for front row NBA seats) with reserve clause era levels of salaries is---sorry---absurd.
   130. valuearbitrageur Posted: July 16, 2011 at 10:30 PM (#3879185)
Not see it's been covered yet in this thread, but the real reason for rising ticket prices is increasing discretionary income. As incomes grow over long periods, a lower percentage is required for necessities, and more available for entertainment. that's created a rapidly growing pool of spending that competes for tickets to all events. That's why ticket prices and sports revenues can outpace inflation and GDP growth fir delegates. Can't continue forever, but still has a while to run.
   131. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 16, 2011 at 11:16 PM (#3879204)
And by the 90's, of course, nearly every team had learned from the Fenway model, and began shrinking their capacities every time a new park was built.

I don't think it was the "Fenway model" as much as the return to baseball-only parks. When you take out the football configuration, you have more seats that are better for baseball, even if overall capacity is down slightly. Better product (on-field + stadium) drives up demand, not attempts to produce artificial scarcity.
   132. Dr. Vaux Posted: July 16, 2011 at 11:28 PM (#3879216)
As incomes grow over long periods, a lower percentage is required for necessities, and more available for entertainment


It seems to me that the prices of necessities have gone up quite a lot in the past few years . . .
   133. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 17, 2011 at 12:03 AM (#3879236)
And by the 90's, of course, nearly every team had learned from the Fenway model, and began shrinking their capacities every time a new park was built.

I don't think it was the "Fenway model" as much as the return to baseball-only parks. When you take out the football configuration, you have more seats that are better for baseball, even if overall capacity is down slightly. Better product (on-field + stadium) drives up demand, not attempts to produce artificial scarcity.

Well, you might add Wrigley to that model, but the Red Sox were really the first to use their limited capacity to keep demand high. Don't forget that when all those retroparks were in the planning stages, the most successful of all the baseball-only parks was Dodger Stadium, but none of the stadium-building owners decided to emulate that 56,000 capacity.

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

As incomes grow over long periods, a lower percentage is required for necessities, and more available for entertainment

It seems to me that the prices of necessities have gone up quite a lot in the past few years . . .

Beyond that, median wages have been stagnant for decades. The increase in discretionary income has been concentrated at the top of the income scale---and surprise, surprise, that's who's buying all those $75 box seats and luxury suites. Once you leave the bleachers and the nosebleed sections, this is not your grandfather's ballpark demographic.
   134. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 17, 2011 at 12:13 AM (#3879243)
Beyond that, median wages have been stagnant for decades. The increase in discretionary income has been concentrated at the top of the income scale---and surprise, surprise, that's who's buying all those $75 box seats and luxury suites. Once you leave the bleachers and the nosebleed sections, this is not your grandfather's ballpark demographic.

I'm not overly impressed with the class-warfare aspect of the discussion. I don't believe MLB owners ever worried too much about making games accessible to poor people. And with a car in almost every driveway, a flat-screen TV on almost every home wall, and an iPhone or equivalent in almost every pocket, it seems dubious that only upper-income people have seen an increase in discretionary income. The fact some of these cities have 40,000 people willing and able to pay such ticket and ballpark prices seems to indicate the opposite.
   135. valuearbitrageur Posted: July 17, 2011 at 12:25 AM (#3879248)
Beyond that, median wages have been stagnant for decades. The increase in discretionary income has been concentrated at the top of the income scale---and surprise, surprise, that's who's buying all those $75 box seats and luxury suites. Once you leave the bleachers and the nosebleed sections, this is not your grandfather's ballpark demographic.


This is absolutely not true, it's up 31% since 1967 adjusted for inflation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Household_income_over_time

Think about how the typical American family lives today vs. the 1960s and it's very clearly true. The average family has many things that either weren't available or were too expensive to be prevalent then. That includes air-conditioning, cable/satellite TV with hundreds of channels/internet access/iPods/Computers and cars that perform better and get far better gas mileage (and are safer and better for the environment), etc, etc. Healthcare is far better with far more effective drugs and procedures, etc.

We clearly live far better now than before, and because of that we have more disposable income. No one needs ipods or internet access or smartphones or hundreds of channels or NetFlix, etc, etc, but we have enough disposable income to buy them in mass amounts.
   136. Hombre Brotani Posted: July 17, 2011 at 01:18 AM (#3879268)
Beyond that, median wages have been stagnant for decades. The increase in discretionary income has been concentrated at the top of the income scale---and surprise, surprise, that's who's buying all those $75 box seats and luxury suites. Once you leave the bleachers and the nosebleed sections, this is not your grandfather's ballpark demographic.


This is absolutely not true, it's up 31% since 1967 adjusted for inflation.
This is true only, but household incomes are up because more people per household are working. Adjusting for inflation, per capita income has basically stayed the same since the mid-60s. Helpful graphs here and here.

EDIT: The numbers are five years old, but I don't expect that there's been a big income spike the last few years.
   137. Chicago Joe Posted: July 17, 2011 at 01:18 AM (#3879269)
This is absolutely not true, it's up 31% since 1967 adjusted for inflation.


He was talking about median wages, which have stagnated.
Since 2000 in constant (82-84) dollars:
Year      Median usual weekly wage
2000          336
2001          338
2002          337
2003          337
2004          338
2005          333
2006          333
2007          335
2008          335
2009          345
2010          342 

The median real wage (in the same constant dollars) in 1967 was $311.
Household income has risen since 1967, but labor force participation among women has gone from roughly 40% to approximately 60%, while participation rates among men have dropped to about 78% from 87%.

So families are working far more hours for that household income.

EDIT: Awesome site, LACoA.
   138. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 17, 2011 at 01:36 AM (#3879275)
Beyond that, median wages have been stagnant for decades. The increase in discretionary income has been concentrated at the top of the income scale---and surprise, surprise, that's who's buying all those $75 box seats and luxury suites. Once you leave the bleachers and the nosebleed sections, this is not your grandfather's ballpark demographic.

This is absolutely not true, it's up 31% since 1967 adjusted for inflation.

I'd suggest that you read your own link, where you can calculate the following increases in disposable income:

20th percentile: 14% since 1973, 9% since 1979

50th percentile: 15% since 1973, 12% since 1979

80th percentile: 35% since 1973, 27% since 1979

95th percentile: 51% since 1973, 38% since 1979.

Of course your link takes us only up to 2003, after which these discrepancies have accelerated. And it only takes us up to the 95th percentile, whereas it's beyond that where the increase in disposable income has truly shot up like a rocket.

And when you look at the rate of inflation for the premium seats in the retroparks compared to the parks of 1979, which income group's rise in disposable income do these increases parallel? Surprise, surprise: It's the group in the upper 5%. Which is exactly the point I was making.

We clearly live far better now than before, and because of that we have more disposable income.

As Tonto once said to the Lone Ranger: "What you mean 'we', kemo sabe?"
   139. Dr. Vaux Posted: July 17, 2011 at 01:42 AM (#3879277)
It should also be pointed out that some things, like cellular phones and internet access (and, of course, the computers to access it with) didn't exist in the '60s for people to spend their real $311 on, but now they not only exist, they're virtual necessities in that many jobs essentially require possession of them. They can't in those cases really be considered discretionary.

At the very least, allocation of discretionary income is somewhat more regimented than in the past, since there are more things beyond housing, food, and transportation that nearly everyone wants.
   140. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 17, 2011 at 01:59 AM (#3879283)
It should also be pointed out that some things, like cellular phones and internet access (and, of course, the computers to access it with) didn't exist in the '60s for people to spend their real $311 on, but now they not only exist, they're virtual necessities in that many jobs essentially require possession of them. They can't in those cases really be considered discretionary.

Nor do they take up an insignificant amount of many people's monthly income, if you consider only the three "new basics" of high speed internet access, cable TV channels**, and a cell phone. All of these are blessings whose benefits can't be fully quantified, but their monetary costs appear on your monthly statement.

**You might reasonably argue that cable access, unlike high speed internet access or a cell phone, isn't a de facto modern necessity, but I doubt if more than a few isolated philosophers would agree.
   141. haven Posted: July 17, 2011 at 02:12 AM (#3879286)
I've never understood how anyone thinks Marvin Miller had a positve effect on the game of baseball. Unless you are a Yankees (and perhaps Red Sox) fan. This doesn't mean I don't think Miller didn't provide incredible value for his constituents, the players. But why should any fan care about how the owners and players divide revenue? What does that have to do with the game of baseball? Miller (and Donald Fehr) should be in the collective bargaining (and perhaps lawyer) hall of fame. Is there such a thing? The baseball hall of fame? To me that is ridiculous. They have literally nothing to do with the game IMO.
   142. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 17, 2011 at 02:14 AM (#3879287)
Nor do they take up an insignificant amount of many people's monthly income, if you consider only the three "new basics" of high speed internet access, cable TV channels**, and a cell phone.

Counting any of these things as "necessities" for purposes of refuting the points raised in #134 and #135 seems ridiculous.

The baseball hall of fame? To me that is ridiculous. They have literally nothing to do with the game IMO.

Except for the literally thousands of player personnel moves that wouldn't have happened but for the MLBPA's successes.
   143. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 17, 2011 at 02:17 AM (#3879290)
(duplicate)
   144. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 17, 2011 at 02:27 AM (#3879294)
Nor do they take up an insignificant amount of many people's monthly income, if you consider only the three "new basics" of high speed internet access, cable TV channels**, and a cell phone.

**You might reasonably argue that cable access, unlike high speed internet access or a cell phone, isn't a de facto modern necessity, but I doubt if more than a few isolated philosophers would agree.

Counting any of these things as "necessities" for purposes of refuting the points raised in #134 and #135 seems ridiculous.

That's an arguable philosophical point, but how truly functional in today's economy is a person without internet access and a cell phone? It's obviously not on the same level as food, shelter, health care and education, but for many people they're certainly a lot more necessary than a trip to the ballpark or a jumbo TV.

And you might note that the comment you were responding to was itself an addendum to the larger point I was making in #138, which stands on its own and directly addressed #135.
   145. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 17, 2011 at 02:41 AM (#3879299)
That's an arguable philosophical point, but how truly functional in today's economy is a person without internet access and a cell phone? It's obviously not on the same level as food, shelter, health care and education, but for many people they're certainly a lot more necessary than a trip to the ballpark or a jumbo TV.

Yes, but your various points seem to be at odds with each other. As discussed above, despite MLB tickets being a lot cheaper in the '70s and '80s, even the best ML teams rarely sold out, and people weren't spending their money on huge TVs, cable TV, internet, iPhones, etc., back then. These days, MLB ticket prices are much higher, but attendance is through the roof even with all sorts of additional ways for people to spend their money. I don't see how you can reconcile the former with the latter within the context of claiming people are worse off now than they were 30 years ago in terms of disposable income.
   146. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 17, 2011 at 02:43 AM (#3879302)
Beyond that, median wages have been stagnant for decades. The increase in discretionary income has been concentrated at the top of the income scale---and surprise, surprise, that's who's buying all those $75 box seats and luxury suites. Once you leave the bleachers and the nosebleed sections, this is not your grandfather's ballpark demographic.

I'm not overly impressed with the class-warfare aspect of the discussion.

Spare me the Limbaugh rhetoric.

I don't believe MLB owners ever worried too much about making games accessible to poor people.

Perhaps not, but their tickets were far more accessible to "poor people" when buck fifty general admission seats (which admitted you to much or most of the lower deck in many or most parks) were plentiful and bleacher seats were a buck or less. I've quoted those prices so many times before that after a certain point you should be aware of them.

The average family has many things that either weren't available or were too expensive to be prevalent then. That includes air-conditioning, cable/satellite TV with hundreds of channels/internet access/iPods/Computers and cars that perform better and get far better gas mileage (and are safer and better for the environment), etc, etc. Healthcare is far better with far more effective drugs and procedures, etc.

Putting aside the rise in the cost of that better healthcare and health insurance, there's no question that many "small luxuries" are relatively more affordable now than before, if they even were available at all in past generations. I'm certainly not an overall fan of the dubious "good old days" school of thought, at least in most aspects of life.

But the specific point I was addressing wasn't jumbo TVs or cool cars or even iPods. It was the affordability of baseball tickets to the median income fan---specifically the non-nosebleed and non-bleacher tickets---compared to what it was in the reserve clause era, adjusted for inflation. Stick to that topic if you want to continue the discussion.
   147. Rafael Bellylard: The Grinch of Orlando. Posted: July 17, 2011 at 02:43 AM (#3879303)
The baseball hall of fame? To me that is ridiculous. They have literally nothing to do with the game IMO.


Except for the literally thousands of player personnel moves that wouldn't have happened but for the MLBPA's successes.


So when it's time, does Scott Boras get in too?
   148. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 17, 2011 at 03:00 AM (#3879312)
Perhaps not, but their tickets were far more accessible to "poor people" when buck fifty general admission seats (which admitted you to much or most of the lower deck in many or most parks) were plentiful and bleacher seats were a buck or less. I've quoted those prices so many times before that after a certain point you should be aware of them.

But MLB tickets weren't priced that way in order to make them more accessible to poor people any more than gold was lower priced 10 years ago to make it more accessible to poor people. It's just simple supply and demand.

So when it's time, does Scott Boras get in too?

Apples and oranges. Boras has simply succeeded within the system created by Miller (and Fehr).
   149. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 17, 2011 at 03:01 AM (#3879313)
your various points seem to be at odds with each other. As discussed above, despite MLB tickets being a lot cheaper in the '70s and '80s, even the best ML teams rarely sold out, and people weren't spending their money on huge TVs, cable TV, internet, iPhones, etc., back then. These days, MLB ticket prices are much higher, but attendance is through the roof even with all sorts of additional ways for people to spend their money. I don't see how you can reconcile the former with the latter within the context of claiming people are worse off now than they were 30 years ago in terms of disposable income.

Increased attendance has many factors, among them:

---Population growth in the metro areas, which has roughly paralleled the growth in attendance since it (attendance) began its steady rise in the mid-70's.

---The rise in discretionary income among the top income strata, which I've addressed above.

---The new wave of stadiums, which far more than their predecessors, are attractions in themselves.

---The hyperventilated marketing strategies that have pushed season tickets on corporations, a trend which has increased almost infinitely since 1975. Take away the business expense deduction and you'll see a dramatic drop in attendance in all big time sports that rely on such sales for a good percentage of their income.

---The rise of free agency, which moves around star players and gives many teams the opportunity to present a fresh new look at least once every few years.

---The establishment of the wild card, which keeps more teams in the postseason chase late into the season.

---The widespread availability of all of a team's games on TV, which may have the effect of keeping people with relatively low incomes at home, but which also has the effect of presenting both the team and the ballpark every day / half the days of the season. It's one of the best forms of advertising you can get, and it's advertising where the payment goes to the ballclub.

Put all this together and that steady rise in attendance can be seen as a combination of demography, technology, necessity, Bud Selig, and the shrewd exploitation of tax laws. It's hardly just a matter of a spontaneous rise in per capita demand.
   150. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 17, 2011 at 03:09 AM (#3879316)
I don't believe MLB owners ever worried too much about making games accessible to poor people.

Perhaps not, but their tickets were far more accessible to "poor people" when buck fifty general admission seats (which admitted you to much or most of the lower deck in many or most parks) were plentiful and bleacher seats were a buck or less. I've quoted those prices so many times before that after a certain point you should be aware of them.

But MLB tickets weren't priced that way in order to make them more accessible to poor people any more than gold was lower-priced 10 years ago to make it more accessible to poor people.

But why bring in intent, when the important point is that they were far more accessible to people at the median and lower income levels. I certainly wasn't trying to pretend that the Comiskeys and the Griffiths were running their businesses on any consciously eleemosynary basis.
   151. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 17, 2011 at 03:18 AM (#3879318)
Increased attendance has many factors, among them: ...

Your comments on increased attendance are interesting, but I don't see how they refuted my comments in #145.

But why bring in intent, when the important point is that they were far more accessible to people at the median and lower income levels. I certainly wasn't trying to pretend that the Comiskeys and the Griffiths were running their businesses on any consciously eleemosynary basis.

Because you seem to be arguing from a class-warfare standpoint in which a total lack of economic progress is preferable to economic progress that leaves some people worse off, at least in a relative sense. That is, you seem to be very angry that the richest people in America today can buy more iPhones and vacations than the richest people of the '70s, while totally ignoring that the average person today is still far better off in terms of quality of life, material possessions, etc.
   152. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 17, 2011 at 03:26 AM (#3879320)
And again, it comes down to my absolute disagreement with the idea that today's ticket prices could be sustained in the face of inflation-adjusted reserve clause era salaries. You seem to be arguing that teams could have kept jacking their prices up year after year the way they have over the past 35 years, just because they felt like it, with no specific explanations that could hold water for a second, and that fans would have just blithely reacted with "Whatever you say, Mr. Billboard", and forked over the money to the extent that they have today. That strikes me as so inherently absurd that it's hard to believe that you even believe that yourself.
It strikes me as common sense.

Andy's problem is that he just can't understand that facts are not subject to compromise. He just has to insist that there must be some middle ground. Debating him on something like this is like debating a New Agey person on homeopathy (or astrology, or crystals, or whatever). They may be willing to admit that there are some unanswered questions in their ideas, but they just can't accept that the truth does not lie halfway between homeopathy and actual chemistry. After all, their grandmother's friend had terrible arthritis until she took such-and-such, and then she got better. So it must be valid, and you're just being unreasonable if you don't concede that.

Andy has his own personal ideas of economics, and who cares what real economics says.
   153. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 17, 2011 at 03:28 AM (#3879321)
Oh. So rock concerts (and college sports, I guess) follow supply-and-demand principles while baseball games don't. I ... see. Interesting.
To Andy, everything is ad hoc. There are no actual principles.
   154. Hombre Brotani Posted: July 17, 2011 at 03:31 AM (#3879322)
Andy AND Kehoskie in the same thread? Ten trillion posts minimum.
   155. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 17, 2011 at 03:39 AM (#3879324)
I've never understood how anyone thinks Marvin Miller had a positve effect on the game of baseball. Unless you are a Yankees (and perhaps Red Sox) fan. This doesn't mean I don't think Miller didn't provide incredible value for his constituents, the players. But why should any fan care about how the owners and players divide revenue? What does that have to do with the game of baseball? Miller (and Donald Fehr) should be in the collective bargaining (and perhaps lawyer) hall of fame. Is there such a thing? The baseball hall of fame? To me that is ridiculous. They have literally nothing to do with the game IMO.
We've had this discussion before here. (We've had every discussion before here.) One can make the argument that the HOF should be limited to players (and perhaps managers) because they're the only ones who "have to do with the game." (*) But that isn't the HOF we have. We have team owners and league presidents in there, people who didn't step foot on a diamond even once. Why should Bowie Kuhn be in the HOF but not Marvin Miller?




(*) Whether that's really true is another question. Frankly, I don't understand how a fan can say "Why would fans care about" Marvin Miller?" How much time do fans spend talking about what free agents their teams should sign? That isn't part of baseball?
   156. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 17, 2011 at 03:50 AM (#3879326)
Andy has his own personal ideas of economics, and who cares what real economics says.

Well, if Krugman is any guide, Andy's well on his way to a Nobel Prize.
   157. Jittery McFrog Posted: July 17, 2011 at 03:52 AM (#3879327)
This is true only, but household incomes are up because more people per household are working. Adjusting for inflation, per capita income has basically stayed the same since the mid-60s.


This is interesting stuff for public policy purposes, but I think household, not per capita, income is the more relevant figure for discussing baseball ticket prices.

If my wife quits her $40,000/year job, that's 40,000 fewer dollars that our family has to spend on things like baseball. The fact that one rather than two of us would be wage-earners -- while certainly relevant to our happiness -- doesn't buy us anything at the ballpark.
   158. Downtown Bookie Posted: July 17, 2011 at 03:55 AM (#3879328)
I've never understood how anyone thinks Marvin Miller had a positve effect on the game of baseball. Unless you are a Yankees (and perhaps Red Sox) fan.


The Yankees won more World Series before Marvin Miller was executive director of the Major League Baseball Players Association than they have won since.

The Red Sox won more World Series before Marvin Miller was born than since.

DB
   159. Hombre Brotani Posted: July 17, 2011 at 04:06 AM (#3879332)
If my wife quits her $40,000/year job, that's 40,000 fewer dollars that our family has to spend on things like baseball. The fact that one rather than two of us would be wage-earners -- while certainly relevant to our happiness -- doesn't buy us anything at the ballpark.
This is very true.
   160. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 17, 2011 at 04:40 AM (#3879339)
their tickets were far more accessible to "poor people" when buck fifty general admission seats (which admitted you to much or most of the lower deck in many or most parks) were plentiful and bleacher seats were a buck or less. I've quoted those prices so many times before that after a certain point you should be aware of them.

When tickets were $1.50, $3,000/$4,000 per year would = lower middle class - with 1 car, 1 phone & 1 TV (black & white, no remote, maybe 3 channels). There weren't a lot poor people going to many games - look at the attendance figures. Sure there were exceptions, but not enough to make MLB more accessible than it is now.
   161. Karl from NY Posted: July 17, 2011 at 05:03 AM (#3879347)
running their businesses on any consciously eleemosynary basis.


Apparently the price of words has gone up too. That one's at least an eighty-dollar word.
   162. valuearbitrageur Posted: July 17, 2011 at 06:41 AM (#3879353)

I'd suggest that you read your own link, where you can calculate the following increases in disposable income:

20th percentile: 14% since 1973, 9% since 1979

50th percentile: 15% since 1973, 12% since 1979

80th percentile: 35% since 1973, 27% since 1979

95th percentile: 51% since 1973, 38% since 1979.

Of course your link takes us only up to 2003, after which these discrepancies have accelerated. And it only takes us up to the 95th percentile, whereas it's beyond that where the increase in disposable income has truly shot up like a rocket.

We clearly live far better now than before, and because of that we have more disposable income.

As Tonto once said to the Lone Ranger: "What you mean 'we', kemo sabe?"


Nothing that has been posted here refutes my point, which is that rising baseball revenues have been driven by an increase in disposable income over a long period ( not 2000), whether those income increases were driven by more household members working or werent perfectly distributed don't change the argument ( and the data clearly shows every income group benefited).
   163. valuearbitrageur Posted: July 17, 2011 at 06:56 AM (#3879355)
I also understand the need of those who want to promote class warfare to try to show the middle class lot has not improved over time, but LOL. look at the cars they drive, size of houses they live in, etc, since the 1969s, and it ain't debatable. It's extremely difficult for economists to adjust inflation estimates for technological progress, and certainly makes it easy for demagogues to manufacture earnings estimates to prove whatever they want.
   164. Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Posted: July 17, 2011 at 10:15 AM (#3879363)
Isn't a large part of the increase in discretionary income not based on income levels, but on household size? Just googleing, average household size is down from 3.1 in 1970 to 2.6 in 2007. People are having fewer kids, and they are having them later in life. Fewer dependants means more discretionary income.
   165. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 17, 2011 at 11:04 AM (#3879366)
Eleemosynary, my dear Watson. Eleemosynary.
   166. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 17, 2011 at 11:11 AM (#3879368)
I've never in my (long) life ever seen a single article that deals with a singer's income.

There are many, and they shouldn't be difficult to find. A swath of industry magazines, including those which are semi-promoted to the public such as Billboard, have covered this topic regularly for decades. Here is a much-reprinted essay by music producer Steve Albini on the entry economics of the business.
   167. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 17, 2011 at 12:04 PM (#3879370)
Andy AND Kehoskie in the same thread? Ten trillion posts minimum.

I'm not overly impressed with the class-warfare aspect of the discussion.


Because you seem to be arguing from a class-warfare standpoint


I also understand the need of those who want to promote class warfare


Keep it up, boys; Some Republican primary candidate out there might need another speechwriter.

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

running their businesses on any consciously eleemosynary basis.

Apparently the price of words has gone up too. That one's at least an eighty-dollar word.

Somewhere Sam Ervin is smiling.
   168. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 17, 2011 at 12:12 PM (#3879371)
I've never in my (long) life ever seen a single article that deals with a singer's income.

There are many, and they shouldn't be difficult to find. A swath of industry magazines, including those which are semi-promoted to the public such as Billboard, have covered this topic regularly for decades. Here is a much-reprinted essay by music producer Steve Albini on the entry economics of the business.

Interesting article, but I guess I should have said that I've never seen an article in the mainstream press (or other MSM) that complained that the singer's take of the gate was driving ticket prices through the roof. This is in comparison to the many such articles I've seen in the MSM about baseball salaries since free agency began, in the general media as well as the sports media.

But perhaps this reflects nothing more than my total lack of interest in rock music over the past 40 years, and if you know of any such MSM articles, let me know.
   169. Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Posted: July 17, 2011 at 12:21 PM (#3879373)
This is in comparison to the many such articles I've seen in the MSM about baseball salaries since free agency began, in the general media as well as the sports media.

That's because sports journalists are economically illiterate bitches.

It's also probably because fans root for teams, and don't root for record labels. So baseball salaries are a direct concern for baseball fans. They care if a guy signs with another team over their own, whereas nobody cares which label a group/artist signs with.
   170. Lassus Posted: July 17, 2011 at 12:34 PM (#3879377)
It's also probably because fans root for teams, and don't root for record labels.

I'm not sure if that's entirely true; I was a pretty big fan of Elektra Nonesuch and SST and would buy albums blind based on those labels. I can't have been the only one.
   171. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 17, 2011 at 12:38 PM (#3879378)
This is in comparison to the many such articles I've seen in the MSM about baseball salaries since free agency began, in the general media as well as the sports media.

That's because sports journalists are economically illiterate bitches.

When it comes to predicting the unexpected consequences of their favored policies, so are most economists. Cue Alan Greenspan, etc.

It's also probably because fans root for teams, and don't root for record labels. So baseball salaries are a direct concern for baseball fans. They care if a guy signs with another team over their own, whereas nobody cares which label a group/artist signs with.

And while nearly every casual baseball fan knows about (and has an opinion about) A-Rod's first $250,000,000 contract, there's probably not a casual rock fan in the world who either knows or cares how much U-2 or any other group makes.
   172. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 17, 2011 at 01:03 PM (#3879380)
A-Rod is the outlier. I doubt most fans have a specific idea of what C.C. Sabathia or Cliff Lee or Vernon Wells is paid. Though hardly anyone knows the details of their favorite singer's take-home pay, either, there've been loads of "who gets how much money?" articles about music, from various "record-setting" contracts for performers like Janet Jackson or Mariah Carey, the Napster case and RIAA file-sharing prosecutions, to Radiohead's "pay what you like" experiment, to the Pearl Jam/Ticketmaster fight, to the "American Idol" talent contracts, to George Michael's unsuccessful lawsuit against his company, to the iTunes pricing model, to the annual value of owning (or not owning) the Beatles song catalogue, and so on.

Here's one such article, about singers using the ticket resale market to gouge their fans.
   173. BDC Posted: July 17, 2011 at 01:06 PM (#3879381)
I was wondering whether, in response to falling or stagnant attendance, actual MLB teams have lowered ticket prices, or raised them less than everyone else was doing. What's the situation in Miami? In recent decades, attendance has grown so terrifically that it's hard to find these counter-examples, of course. I tried to google "Montreal Expos Ticket Prices" and found this:

Ticket Luck
is built on the premise that the
Lucky
will find the
cheapest Montreal Expos Tickets.
Ticket Luck cuts on marketing, making us hard to "find" on the huge world wide web. But if we are lucky to "connect", while you were searching for
Montreal Expos
you can be assured that you won't find
better prices
for
Montreal Expos
anywhere else. Our request is that if you like our
service
after you buy
Montreal Expos Tickets
, you tell your friends about it.


This tells me that archy the cockroach has learned to type capital letters, but it's not very informative about the history of baseball economics.
   174. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 17, 2011 at 01:48 PM (#3879386)
A-Rod is the outlier. I doubt most fans have a specific idea of what C.C. Sabathia or Cliff Lee or Vernon Wells is paid. Though hardly anyone knows the details of their favorite singer's take-home pay, either, there've been loads of "who gets how much money?" articles about music, from various "record-setting" contracts for performers like Michael Jackson or Mariah Carey, the Napster case and RIAA file-sharing prosecutions, to Radiohead's "pay what you like" experiment, to the Pearl Jam/Ticketmaster fight, to the "American Idol" talent contracts, to the iTunes pricing model, to the annual value of owning the Beatles song catalogue, and so on.

A-Rod's the outlier, but he's also a stand-in and a symbol for what many fans see as the cause of those ticket prices. Do rock fans make similar types of value judgments about their favorite musicians?

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

I was wondering whether, in response to falling or stagnant attendance, actual MLB teams have lowered ticket prices, or raised them less than everyone else was doing.

I'm sure that a few of them have in certain years, depending on recent team performance and also depending on how recently the last price hikes occurred. One of BB-references next projects might be to research ticket prices over the years. Right now the only sources for this information are spotty: The 1964-85 Dope Books; the 1992-2002 Baseball Guides; scattered Opening Day issues of The Sporting News before that; team yearbooks and programs; etc.

But to make sense of the prices, you also have to know the where the seating boundaries were between the price tiers, because otherwise you'll conflate a "reserved seat" in one era (where it may have put you right behind 20 rows of lower deck box seats) with a modern day "reserved seat" in the upper reaches of the nosebleed sections. The micromanaging and reconfiguring of the various sections has been one of the key components in the raising of real ticket prices. What used to be three or five tiers is now as many as 30 or more, each one further adjusted for "premium" or "prime" games.

Without that kind of knowledge, you wind up raising completely irrelevant points about cheap phones and jumbo TVs, as if these have anything to do with ticket prices and what sort of seats you got for your money over the passing years. Which is pretty much the sort of irrelevant points you see being repeated here time and again. These arguments partly stem from the usual "free market" ideology among certain Primates who love to hammer square pegs into round holes and call it "principles", but less ideological types often advance similar arguments based on simple factual ignorance. Not having been there, they apparently have no idea of just how much more, in adjusted CPI dollars, a non-nosebleed or non-bleacher fan of today is being stuck for the same view that he was getting 35 or 55 years ago, and what it's done to change the demographics of the crowds in all of those sections.

Of course I suppose to point this out is "class warfare", but that sort of silly rhetoric just goes with the territory when the free market fundamentalists join the discussion.
   175. Jay Z Posted: July 17, 2011 at 02:26 PM (#3879399)
It strikes me as common sense.

Andy's problem is that he just can't understand that facts are not subject to compromise. He just has to insist that there must be some middle ground. Debating him on something like this is like debating a New Agey person on homeopathy (or astrology, or crystals, or whatever). They may be willing to admit that there are some unanswered questions in their ideas, but they just can't accept that the truth does not lie halfway between homeopathy and actual chemistry. After all, their grandmother's friend had terrible arthritis until she took such-and-such, and then she got better. So it must be valid, and you're just being unreasonable if you don't concede that.

Andy has his own personal ideas of economics, and who cares what real economics says.


Whereas in your economics, countries would thrive at 10% of the tax level they are currently taking in. Which is provable somehow, I'm sure. By Hayek or von Mises or Austrians.
   176. Karl from NY Posted: July 17, 2011 at 05:03 PM (#3879458)
The micromanaging and reconfiguring of the various sections has been one of the key components in the raising of real ticket prices. What used to be three or five tiers is now as many as 30 or more, each one further adjusted for "premium" or "prime" games.


Hell yeah. I count 37 pricing tiers at Citifield, times 8 different combinations of game premiumness and group size.
   177. . Posted: July 17, 2011 at 05:29 PM (#3879463)
I'm sure that a few of them have in certain years, depending on recent team performance and also depending on how recently the last price hikes occurred. One of BB-references next projects might be to research ticket prices over the years. Right now the only sources for this information are spotty: The 1964-85 Dope Books; the 1992-2002 Baseball Guides; scattered Opening Day issues of The Sporting News before that; team yearbooks and programs; etc.

But to make sense of the prices, you also have to know the where the seating boundaries were between the price tiers, because otherwise you'll conflate a "reserved seat" in one era (where it may have put you right behind 20 rows of lower deck box seats) with a modern day "reserved seat" in the upper reaches of the nosebleed sections. The micromanaging and reconfiguring of the various sections has been one of the key components in the raising of real ticket prices. What used to be three or five tiers is now as many as 30 or more, each one further adjusted for "premium" or "prime" games.

Saturday, August 29, 1987, the nucleus that could have been a dynasty as they're gelling vs. the best fireballer ever in the middle of one of his best years. Astros at Pirates. Twenty rows up, just to the first base side of home plate, well within the boundaries of what today are half-empty moats. Two walk-ups who asked "Give us the best you have."(**)

Face value: 8 dollars a seat.

I wouldn't extrapolate this observation, and I wouldn't quibble with anyone who insisted that today's overall "presentation" is somehow "better," but under no reasonable circumstance, as compared with this game, is the product on offer today worth the price. No chance.

(**) The ability to make this statement and mean it is another simple pleasure lost.
   178. . Posted: July 17, 2011 at 05:35 PM (#3879465)
---The new wave of stadiums, which far more than their predecessors, are attractions in themselves.


Same chord, different note: People with little to no interest in baseball will pay what is effectively a cover charge to go to the malls and bars and restaurants and people-watching locales in today's mallparks. The product on offer today is barely comparable to its reserve clause and the decade or so after counterpart.

Tiger Stadium was a fantastic place to watch a baseball game. If you had no interest in baseball, there'd be no reason to go, and few if anyone without an interest in baseball went. Tiger Stadium's contemporary, Wrigley Field, is a great party and even baseball fans go for the party. Fenway Park, the other non-mallpark still extant, is sui generis.

EDIT: Oakland's the other non-mallpark still standing and no one goes there no matter how good the baseball is.
   179. . Posted: July 17, 2011 at 05:40 PM (#3879466)
$25 for a cocktail is so extreme as to be a different world.

At the Cipriani's near The Plaza in '00 or '01, I ordered a martini and a cosmopolitan, put two 20s on the bar and the bartender sneered. I ended up paying with credit card, so I didn't catch the precise number, but with tip the bill was over 50 dollars, likely closer to 60.
   180. . Posted: July 17, 2011 at 06:10 PM (#3879476)
On ebay there's an '87 Pirate ticket stub for a seat upstairs up for auction. The starting bid price for the stub is $4.99. The face value cost of the ticket, complete with a license to watch a major league baseball game: $4.00.
   181. Brian C Posted: July 17, 2011 at 06:16 PM (#3879477)
These arguments partly stem from the usual "free market" ideology among certain Primates who love to hammer square pegs into round holes and call it "principles"...

LOL. Seriously.
   182. . Posted: July 17, 2011 at 06:39 PM (#3879491)
Ebay's actually a good source for Andy's worthy project suggestion:

1985 Royals, a world-championship caliber team. Field Box Aisle 1 Row Y, Seat 3 -- probably one of the very best seats in the house.

Seven dollars.

1987 ALCS Game 4, upper box in Tiger Stadium. As patrons of Wrigley and Fenway (I think) can attest, these seats, because of the poles and the way you can shape the decks if you have poles, have no mallpark equivalent. They are significantly closer to the field than a second-deck seat practically everywhere today and every upper-deck "box" seat in Tiger Stadium was in front of the poles. If they're on the infield, no better place from which to watch a baseball game has ever been crafted. Even if they're in the outfield, they're terrific.

Twenty-five dollars.
   183. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 17, 2011 at 07:40 PM (#3879517)
A-Rod's the outlier, but he's also a stand-in and a symbol for what many fans see as the cause of those ticket prices. Do rock fans make similar types of value judgments about their favorite musicians?

A short skim on Google showed me webpage headlines with the titles "AC/DC's GREEDY concert promoters have sunk to a new low," "The Eagles Take $895 Concert Tickets to the Limit," "Are Bands More Greedy Than They Used To Be?", "The Economics of Real Superstars: The Market for Rock Concerts in the Material World," "Megastars play to empty seats after fans balk at ticket prices," "TicketMaster are greedy pigs," "Why are concert prices so dammed high?", "Why does U2 charge several hundred $$$$'s for concert tickets," "Why Should Rock Stars Expect To Be Rich?", "Enrique Iglesias Pulls Out Of Britney's Overpriced Tour," "Moby is a rich idiot," "Apple Threatens to Close iTunes Store Over Possible Royalty Hikes," "Record Industry: Limewire Could Owe $75 Trillion – Judge: “Absurd”, "Trent Reznor says STEAL MUSIC," "How much money does the lead singer for Slipknot make a year?", "Being a Streisand Fan is Expensive," "New Springsteen DVD a money grab?", "BILLY JOEL: WTF?", "An Open Letter To Neil Young On Ticket Prices," "Greed vs. fan friendly," and that's where I ended my totally scientific research. Conversely, there are also musicians who've made a big deal about keeping costs down- e.g. Fugazi, Pearl Jam, Radiohead, Tom Petty-- and have derived loyalty and goodwill from doing so.

But on the whole, yes: there's more angry blame for athletes than musicians. And there's not a "rooting for the laundry" mentality regarding Sony BMG Music or Ticketmaster, as opposed to sports. Also, the top-grossing geezer tours (e.g. McCartney, Stones, Jimmy Buffett, Genesis, Police, Bon Jovi) are most definitely NOT dealing with a "But what have you done lately?" public.
   184. . Posted: July 17, 2011 at 08:09 PM (#3879529)
Warren Buffett made a lot of money spotting the unrealized value in brand names and unique assets that can't be built from scratch no matter how much money is brought to the project -- Coca-Cola, the Washington Post, etc. He bought several of these things in the early 1970s when their true value was unappreciated by almost everybody else. Major league baseball brands share many of the same characteristics as Buffett's favorite brands; I could spend $2 billion tomorrow and I couldn't build "The New York Yankees" or the "Boston Red Sox," or even the "Detroit Tigers" or "Chicago White Sox."(**) (Or, for that matter, as Andy noted, "The University of Texas" or "Duke University." Which is why the best high school football and basketball players gravitate to the best brands, even though they don't make any more money for doing so.)

Though those brands have "competition," they have no real substitutes. And since they have no real substitutes, their owners have significant pricing power. That inherent value was not realized by their 70s/80s era owners, just as Buffett's 70s/80s era business contemporaries didn't see the value in brands like Coca-Cola. Essentially Buffet's entire fortune was built on him seeing what others didn't.

(**) And that's why old man Steinbrenner's "vision" was nothing of the sort; it's practically impossible to permanently impair the Yankee brand, and that was the case in 1973 -- irrespective of whatever temporary tarnish was cast upon it by the likes of Horace Clarke and Jerry Kenney. Just as the University of Michigan football brand hasn't been permanently impaired by the school enlisting a bunch of relative midgets to play under .500 football the last three years.
   185. Kiko Sakata Posted: July 17, 2011 at 08:09 PM (#3879530)
A-Rod's the outlier, but he's also a stand-in and a symbol for what many fans see as the cause of those ticket prices.


One can't be both an "outlier" and a "stand-in and a symbol" for a wider group. Outlier explicitly means something that's sufficiently unique as to be of no value in drawing wider conclusions.
   186. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 17, 2011 at 08:34 PM (#3879548)
Google images of World Series tickets, 1976-2010, shows these box seat prices:

1976 Loge Box (Cinci) or Field Box (NY) - $15 each ($57.50 in 2010 dollars)
1981 Loge Box (LA) - $20 ($47.99) (-13% from previous listing in real dollars)
1986 Field Box (NY) - $40 ($79.60) (+66%)
1991 Box Seat (Minn) - $60 ($96.08) (+21%)
1996 Dugout Box (Atl.) - $70 ($97.30) (+1%)
2001 Box seat well down the LF line, Sec. 134 (Arizona) $145 ($178.57) (+ 84%)
2006 Loge Box (St. Louis) - $225 ($243.42) (+36%)
2010 Home plate box, Section 24 (Texas) - $250 (+3%)

Two points to note: Demand is always at a peak for the World Series, and the prices are set by the Commissioner's Office before the actual teams and locations have been determined. So it's safe to say that there are key subjective factors in pricing, and that they at have at least something to do with public relations and perceptions.

Where do we see the smallest rise? In 1981, two months after the players' strike, the real price actually went down from 1976.

When are the other two cases of marginal increases? In 1996 - two years after the 1994/95 strike, and 2010, in the face of a brutal economy

And when were the three mega-increases? In 1986, after the fans had started to return in force; in 2001, in the aftermath of the Home Run Thrills; and in 2006, in the midst of the second stock market surge and the peak of the housing price bubble.

Not saying that it's as simple as all that, and in this case salaries don't enter into it, but I'd love to see some better alternate explanations for the movement of those numbers than those changing intangible factors.
   187. Brian C Posted: July 17, 2011 at 08:36 PM (#3879549)
But on the whole, yes: there's more angry blame for athletes than musicians.

And yet ... ticket prices have skyrocketed in both cases. One might therefore be tempted to see "people caring about salaries" as a correlation with high prices in baseball instead of a cause of high prices in baseball, instead of insisting that since both exist, one must be the cause of the other.
   188. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 17, 2011 at 08:39 PM (#3879553)
One can't be both an "outlier" and a "stand-in and a symbol" for a wider group. Outlier explicitly means something that's sufficiently unique as to be of no value in drawing wider conclusions.

Not really, since he could be an outlier in terms of the actual numbers, but a stand-in or symbol in the public eye of the larger trend of outrageous contracts. The fact that A-Rod was the biggest lightning rod doesn't mean that other contracts weren't exempt from similar scorn, even if A-Rod's scorn has outlasted the rest of them.
   189. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: July 17, 2011 at 08:53 PM (#3879563)
And yet ... ticket prices have skyrocketed in both cases. One might therefore be tempted to see "people caring about salaries" as a correlation with high prices in baseball instead of a cause of high prices in baseball, instead of insisting that since both exist, one must be the cause of the other.

Do you even understand the difference between a direct cause and an indirect and partial cause? And do you think that if salaries were still set unilaterally by the owners, and remained at inflation-adjusted reserve clause era salaries, that ticket prices would have escalated to the 37-fold extent that they have? You've said that you do, but that belief comes with the complete avoidance of every factor other than pure owner autonomy, which is why it's bizarre to say the least.

Of course a far more likely scenario would have been: Rising prices in the face of static salaries would have led to greater profits, and at some point Marvin Miller could have been born a Himalayan monk and the players still would have organized and wound up more or less where we are today. I've been saying that ticket prices couldn't have risen like they have without free agency because of fan backlash, but even more than that, the players simply wouldn't have accepted those mega profits without demanding (and getting) a major revision of the whole relationship.
   190. Kiko Sakata Posted: July 17, 2011 at 08:56 PM (#3879567)
Not really, since he could be an outlier in terms of the actual numbers, but a stand-in or symbol in the public eye of the larger trend of outrageous contracts.


But that's not what GB meant in #172 by "outlier". He meant that A-Rod was an outlier insofar as fans knew how much money he made, whereas fans don't generally know how much other specific baseball players make.
   191. McCoy Posted: July 17, 2011 at 08:58 PM (#3879570)
1993 200 level Vet Stadium: $60.00. 600 and 700 level was $45. Toronto was 78 canadian dollars.

1995 Tier reserve was $45. box seats were 60.00

1990 box seat was $50. 1992 it was $60.00

Looks to me like MLB kept the price at 60/45 for four seasons and three of those 4 seasons were during great boom times for the league,
   192. . Posted: July 17, 2011 at 09:03 PM (#3879571)
Those numbers, at least on their face, entirely support the public relations/intangible factor theory of ticket pricing. If a 200 level seat in the Vet in '93 was 60, a box seat was probably something like 70. Two years later -- after the strike, when MLB was trying to regain goodwill -- a box seat was ca. 14% less than in 1993.(**) Then, as things calmed down, they were back up to 70 in 1996, as per Andy's chart. There are few if any other premium/luxury products in the American economy whose owners dropped prices 14% between 1993 and 1995.

(**) Even though there's essentially no doubt Indians fans were unaffected by the strike and would have cheerfully paid more.
   193. McCoy Posted: July 17, 2011 at 09:07 PM (#3879574)
1980's box ticket was also $20.00

1979's ticket was $7 for standing room (pitt), $12 for lower reserved (Balt), $17 for Box (pitt).
   194. McCoy Posted: July 17, 2011 at 09:11 PM (#3879577)
re-192 200 level is the "box seats" at Veterans Stadium.

It looks to me as though 1996 was the first time they hit $70. It looks like the highest commonly available ticket from 1991 to 1995 was $60.00. After 1990 they jacked the price up by 20% and then left it alone until 1996 which also fits in with what we saw before the 1981 strike.

There is no real evidence that the labor problems came into play when pricing these tickets. I guess one could argue that had there been no labor strike they would have raised the prices that year instead of keeping them the same but that can only be a guess since we have no evidence of that.
   195. Brian C Posted: July 17, 2011 at 09:12 PM (#3879579)
And do you think that if salaries were still set unilaterally by the owners, and remained at inflation-adjusted reserve clause era salaries, that ticket prices would have escalated to the 37-fold extent that they have?

Yes, all other things being equal. Of course.

If owners didn't have high salaries as an excuse, they would have simply found another excuse. There's no reason to think the excuse works all that well anyway; people still complain about ticket prices all the time. It's not like they're magically made happy about high ticket prices because they're subsidizing millionaire players like your half-baked theories would seem to require.

To belabor the point, we see this at work in college sports. Universities want to raise prices, but they can't blame player salaries. So they use other excuses besides "we want to bilk you dry." For example, they talk at great length and with great passion about how they need better facilities to keep up, and how endless stadium expansions, better practice facilities, etc., will keep them attractive for recruits.
   196. McCoy Posted: July 17, 2011 at 09:15 PM (#3879584)
1982 Loge reserved/upper grandstand was $18. Box were $24.

1983 looks like 25/30

1984 looks like 25/30

1985 looks like 40.
   197. . Posted: July 17, 2011 at 09:19 PM (#3879588)
If owners didn't have high salaries as an excuse, they would have simply found another excuse.

Except that they didn't until a decade-plus after the end of the reserve clause era. They sold their franchises for far less than their intrinsic value, and they sold their tickets for less than their intrinsic value. Their ability to properly price and value their assets and product was dreadful. It doesn't matter in the end, but one has to wonder whether the fact that they got faulty price/value signals from their labor market spilled over into their business judgment generally.

You're extrapolating from the fact that the owners finally figured out the intrinsic value of their product, the improper conclusion that they always knew it. They didn't.
   198. Brian C Posted: July 17, 2011 at 09:26 PM (#3879601)
I don't really know what WS tickets would tell us anyway. Demand is going to be really high regardless, yet teams would conceivably have a long-term interest in not pricing their season ticketholders out of the games (not so much an issue for the NFL, who can take more of a sky's-the-limit approach).
   199. . Posted: July 17, 2011 at 09:32 PM (#3879606)
re-192 200 level is the "box seats" at Veterans Stadium.

There's a 100 level on the field. (Google "Veterans Stadium seating chart")
   200. . Posted: July 17, 2011 at 09:35 PM (#3879607)
I don't really know what WS tickets would tell us anyway. Demand is going to be really high regardless, yet teams would conceivably have a long-term interest in not pricing their season ticketholders out of the games (not so much an issue for the NFL, who can take more of a sky's-the-limit approach).

Well, according to this line of reasoning, it would tell us they don't gouge every dime out of ticket demand and consider factors other than demand when they set ticket prices.

IOW, what Andy's been saying.
Page 2 of 5 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Don Malcolm
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog: OT - NBA Off-Pre-Early Thread for the end of 2023
(13 - 3:00am, Sep 26)
Last: aberg

Newsblog: Betts sets 'remarkable' record with 105 RBIs as a leadoff hitter
(16 - 2:17am, Sep 26)
Last: sunday silence (again)

Newsblog: Joey Votto and the city of Cincinnati say 'Thank you' in a potential goodbye
(5 - 2:02am, Sep 26)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

Newsblog: OT - 2023 NFL thread
(16 - 12:24am, Sep 26)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale

Newsblog: Omnichatter for September 2023
(525 - 12:24am, Sep 26)
Last: sunday silence (again)

Newsblog: How to Save an Aging Ballpark
(5 - 12:21am, Sep 26)
Last: sunday silence (again)

Newsblog: The MLB Trade Rumors 2023-24 Free Agent Previews
(1 - 11:30pm, Sep 25)
Last: NaOH

Newsblog: OT Soccer - World Cup Final/European Leagues Start
(115 - 9:47pm, Sep 25)
Last: Infinite Yost (Voxter)

Newsblog: Baseball America: Jackson Holliday Wins 2023 Minor League Player of the Year Award
(2 - 8:35pm, Sep 25)
Last: Tony S

Newsblog: Ex-Nats reliever Sean Doolittle exits after '11 incredible seasons'
(7 - 8:16pm, Sep 25)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

Newsblog: Yankees' status quo under Brian Cashman resulted in 'disaster' season, and a fresh perspective is needed
(11 - 5:07pm, Sep 25)
Last: Tony S

Sox Therapy: Over and Out
(45 - 3:05pm, Sep 25)
Last: Nasty Nate

Newsblog: As Padres’ season spirals, questions emerge about culture, cohesion and chemistry
(49 - 11:41am, Sep 25)
Last: Mr. Hotfoot Jackson (gef, talking mongoose)

Newsblog: Qualifying Offer Value To Land Around $20.5MM
(15 - 9:23am, Sep 25)
Last: DL from MN

Newsblog: Site Outage Postponed
(106 - 9:10am, Sep 25)
Last: Nasty Nate
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising

Page rendered in 0.7872 seconds
48 querie(s) executed