Sports Lies, Damned Lies and Baseball Attendance
posted by on August 12 at 10:55 AM
In a comments thread a few days back about baseball, Fnarf argued that Cubs fans invariably support losing teams, citing the attendance for 1947, when the 6th place Cubs drew 1,364, 039. Apart from the fact that the Cubs were then not the “loveable losers”—a meme that doesn’t start till the 1970s—and were just a season removed from winning the pennant in 1945, that reasoning doesn’t stand up.
The problem with such arguments is that factors other than a team’s success will influence its attendance: like how big a city the team is located in, ie, how many people they can draw from. To spare you non-sports/urban demographics fans, the rest is after the jump… and can be continued live at Slog Happy on Thursday!
In 1947, the NL final standings were: Brooklyn, St. Louis, Boston, New York, Cincinnati, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia. If you look at metropolitan area populations from the 1950 Census, the “standings” would be: New York(including Brooklyn), Chicago, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Boston, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati. The order in which the teams finished in attendance: Brooklyn, New York, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Boston, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Cincinnati.
So, what have we learned? That attendance correlates strongly to urban population. The top three teams in attendance are in the two largest cities. The smaller cities, whatever their final finish, had significantly smaller attendance: St. Louis came in second, but was seventh in attendance and fourth in population. Boston, the third place team, was 6th in attendance and fifth in population. Cincinnati came in fourth, but was dead last in attendance—and was the smallest NL population. Only Philadelphia fans seem to fit the Fnarf analysis, since their last place team was seventh in attendance despite being the third largest city. Maybe some of them took the train to Brooklyn to watch the Dodgers. And there’s the Jackie Robinson factor: African-American fans flocked to NL ballparks to see the Dodgers whenever they came to town. In fact, the Cubs set their all-time attendance record on Robinson’s first day: 46, 572 paid. This phenomenon inflated attendance across the league, and, again, demographics would come into play: cities with large and relatively prosperous African-American communities would have larger attendance: Brooklyn/New York, Chicago. Cities that were basically Southern—St. Louis, Cincinnati—would not get such a bump. And St. Louis and Cincinnati come in 7th and 8th in attendance.
And all of this is further complicated by the fact that except for Pittsburgh and Cincinnati, each of these NL cities also had an American League competitor.
Ah, the joys of statistics. See y’all Thursday…
Like the Mariners and White Sox, love the Brewers, truly despise cub fans. Horry Kow, indeed.
http://sportsbybrooks.com/horry-kow-cubs-shirts-still-for-sale-17763
Yawn. You may think you have explained 1947, but you've still got the next sixty years to cover. Cubs fans typically don't even know which team is at bat.
Yay! Dismissing a reasoned thesis with a brisk wave of the hand is fun. I hereby nominate Fnarf for Republican VP.
I hate to say it, but Fnarf is right. Take a random sampling on any day @ Wrigley (especially in the bleachers), and most wouldn't be able to spell C U B S. They're just there to drink and hook up.
(Full disclosure: St. Louis Cardinals fans love to hate Cubs fans, so obvious bias may be at play)
if you have a question about baseball statistics of any kind, google it and you'll almost certainly find an answer. if you took all the brains and time people have spent on answering stupid baseball questions we could have solved cancer and racism by now (both using the same once-a-week pill).
people have done sophisticated studies of correlates to baseball attendance and have looked at the cubs specifically. short answer, cubs attendance correlates with win-loss records but not as much as with most teams. past win-loss records (ie the past few years) also correlate with attendance. another big factor is how new (or historical) the stadium is.
there are obviously many other factors, which is why the montreal expos had almost 0 attendance despite having a big urban population and not having the most horrible teams. montreal had worse teams a couple decades ago and drew much larger audiences than at their ends. since safeco opened, seattle has had much larger attendance than the population and win-loss records would indicate. that's probably due to the mariners' successful marketing and non-traditional demographics (at least a few years ago, seattle had more women, old people, and children attendees than any other mlb team).
Fritz, I don't dismiss ALL reasoned theses with a wave of the hand. Only when they involve the Cubs.
Technically, the National League isn't even a Major League anymore, anyways.
"... attendance correlates strongly to urban population."
Not really.
The White Sox (also in Chicago) have the same populous to draw from as the Cubs, yet struggle to fill their stadium in the more dense but poorer south side of Chicago. Even in 2005 when they won the world series they totaled nearly a million less than the Chicago Cubs in attendance.
Staying with baseball, Seattle through 2001-2002 led the Major Leagues in attendance and had one of the top teams. Fast forward to 2008 now the Mariners suck, rank 19th in attendance so far this season and have had an on-going fire-sale on their best stars.
It's about creating an enjoyable baseball experience, making a marketable brand, staying loyal to your fan-base and attempting to stay competitive. All things the Cubs and other teams, like the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, St. Louis, Giants, have accomplished. Population size is a minimal factor.
The best example of this is in football with the Green Bay Packers with a population of 100,000 and an average attendance of 70,000. The Packers have attempted to stay competitive, let the fans own stock in the team, have one of the most marketable brands in sports and sell out even in off-years.
Technically, the National League isn't even a Major League
Now thems fightin words. I guess on your planet the DH makes for a Major League? Puh-leeeeze!!!
I think a city's, or metro area really, culture is the most important factor. There will always be fairweather fans (that aren't Atlanta) in every town, but to have consistent attendance, you've got to make seeing a baseball game just "something everyone does".
Sometimes that means your father always took you to games, so you take your children and so on, but in cases like the Giants here in SF, people just kinda like going to the stadium and sitting in the sun or enjoying the view. Those losers sell out almost every game even without Bonds' home run race.
In some regards, it seems like these days a nice stadium is better than a winning team. Although when Oakland moves to Fremont, once the initial interest from Silicon Valley wears thin, I think attendance is going to be pretty dismal, nice stadium or not.
In other words, who fucking knows.
...?
Famous Mariners traded: Randy Johnson, Ken Griffey Jr., Tino Martinez, Jamie Moyer, Freddie Garcia, Jose Cruz Jr., and failing to re-sign Alex Rodriguez before his price ballooned as well as Mike Cameron and Carlos Guillen. These were all All-Stars, some of them to be hall of famers that the mariner's front office has pushed out or coughed up.
But as long as we acquire stars like Al Martin and JJ Putz we'll be fine.
@9: Surely the absence of the DH isn't responsible for the NL's dismal record in the All-Star Game (11 straight, 17 out of 20), the World Series, and interleague play, or the constant stream of NL stars who move to the AL and become journeymen, and vice-versa. The NL's AAAA at best. There are like three teams in that league who could hang with the AL, and even the M's would be a .500 club over there at least.
But I can see your point, because watching pitchers bat is SOOOOO FASCINATING.
@11: those were all years ago, under the previous regime or the one before that. You said "continuing", you said "fire sale", and you said "best stars". Horacio Ramirez? Richie Sexson? Jose Vidro? These are not good players, let alone "best stars".
Jose Cruz, Jr. (traded eleven years ago) was not a good player. Neither was Tino (traded THIRTEEN years ago), really, or Freddy Garcia (traded four years ago). Al Martin was here SEVEN YEARS AGO. Your point?
There's an argument to be made for Mariner stupidity, but you're not making it here.
Oh yeah, All Star games are really great measures.
The World Series is a better measure, and since 2000 it has been pretty much back and forth (Cards in '06!).
And the "constant stream of NL stars"? They leave the NL where they have to play defense to go be DHs.
Finally, your remark about pitchers batting is typical myopic AL thinking. It isn't fascinating watching a pitcher bat, but it is fascinating watching a real manager negotiate a batting order. As opposed to sending up a huge 'roid head that can't catch.
Now I really can't wait til October. I still remember your excellent prediction that the Cards wouldn't score a run against the Tigers. How that end up again? I can't remeber, I'm too busy calling a suicide squeeze. Let me know if you want me to explain what that is.
NL fans always like to bring up their genius strategy. Ooh, look, a double-switch. But you know what? If you discount the brain-dead-obvious double-switch cases, when you use your pinch hitter to swap out your tired pitcher, AL teams use MORE strategic moves than NL ones. Watching NL managers make their move is about as mentally stimulating as watching a dead frog's leg twitch in the lab. You can keep your suicide squeeze if we can keep our three-run homers (obviously I am using "we" in a rather generic sense, since the reincarnation of Babe Ruth couldn't hit a three-run homer for the Mariners, who are never on base).
Again, AL logic. I do belive you when you write watching strategy is boring...for AL fans who wouldn't recognize nuance if it bludgeoned them over the head.
For the NL, it is not an either or. We have three run dongs and suicide squeezes (and double switches!).
Sadly, the Ms have none of the above. Sorry your team sucks, but don't blame The Senior Circuit.
Well, I do blame the Senile Circuit, because if we got to play our games over there, we'd be in the hunt for a division title (our record in interleague play would put us 1/2 game off the NL West lead if extrapolated over a season).
The NL in interleague play this year: 103-149, .409. Which means that, as bad as the M's are, the average NL team is barely any better.
Yes, you have three-run homers -- off of one of your vast assemblage of AAA pitchers who've been bounced out of the AL.
Fnarf,
Watching Cubs pitcher Carlos Zambrano hit, .364 batting average and .591 slugging percentage, is soooo much more fascinating than watching any Mariner at bat.
OK, these responses don't get a whole new Slog entry, just to spare those who don't care.
I won't get into the whole DH v. Non-DH argument, but will instead concede that the NL has sucked compared to the AL lately. Just as the AL sucked compared to the NL in the late '60s through the early '80s. These things go in cycles.
Now, for substantive rebuttals:
@those who diss Cubs fans for being at the game to drink and have fun, hey, didn't know baseball was High Mass at the Fucking Vatican. Let me also point out that numerous press reports about the booing Cubs players are getting when they don't do well (especially since 2003) is anecdotal evidence against your anecdotal evidence. As a season-ticket holder who goes to about 25 games a year, let me say that everyone knows what inning it is, since that is the same as knowing when they cut off beer sales.
@ baseball nerd: Montreal suffered under the fact that baseball was never a French Canadian game. And marketing and other concerns are part of the other factors besides standings that I claim play a key role in attendance, so point granted.
As for the Packers (and why the NFL comes into this, I don't know), there is NOTHING else to do in northern Wisconsin in football season except ice-fish and drink. I've gone to many Packer games without tickets, and have always been able to score seats in the parking lot. And 16 NFL games a year doesn't work in comparison to 162 MLB games a year.
Finally, at Andy: the South Side of Chicago, where the White Sox play, is not more densely populated than the North Side: it is bigger, and has more people, but that's it. The fan base fled the city in the '50s and '60s (White Sox flight, I call it) and the "ballpark" is jammed between an expressway and a railyard, with nothing to do before or after the game except fear for one's life.
As for the attendance v. standings v. population math for the AL in 1947, it's complicated by factors like cross-town rivals being succesful (Chicago, St. Louis), but otherwise, it's the strong correlation (not absolute correlation) I suggested in this post. The biggest city, New York, beats out Cleveland (fourth-biggest city, fourth place team) 2,178,937 to 1,521,978. Boston, the third largest city is also the third in attendance, and Detroit is in second place in the standings and fourth place in attendance. The Fnarf Thesis is proved by St. Louis, which was the smallest AL city and in last place in the standings and in attendance. Which is why the Browns became the Orioles soon after.
our record in interleague play would put us 1/2 game off the NL West lead if extrapolated over a season
ENORMOUS leap.
Also, thanks elrider. That Zambrano is a motherfucker, isn't he?
Comments Closed
Comments are closed on this post.