Big Shock: D.C. a bad baseball town

[DrungoHazewood]

4) Ticket pricing . . . tickets cost way too much there. They tried to pull in money from a big first season at the new stadium, but seem to forget that they are still trying to win fans over.

I missed this before, but this is a good point. My take is that Nats' ownership isn't focusing on attendance, but revenues. They think they that they'll make more money drawing 23,000 at their insane price levels than they would drawing 35,000 at more modest prices. Time will tell.

[mojmann]

Now Detroit is magically a great baseball town.

There's something that separates D.C. and Detroit. Detroit has a long-term history of successful baseball. Tradition.

D.C. had two franchises that floundered through most of their existence -- on the field and at the gate.

[mojmann]

College football my friend. Pro football is a few steps above arena football to many in the Deep South.

Touche, my fellow Crimson Tide fan.

[RShack]

College football my friend. Pro football is a few steps above arena football to many in the Deep South.

Exactly. For many, the story in Atlanta is "I-75, Falcons nothing".

BTW,

. The censors wouldn't let them say "helluva" ;-)

[DuffMan]

Something else to consider is that the Wizards and Capitals are both playing and playing well. You may also see a bump when their respective seasons end. Hopefully not any time soon for the caps though;)

[CrimsonTribe]

Touche, my fellow Crimson Tide fan.

Heh, I didn't even notice you were in Birmingham. I shouldn't be telling you things you already know.

I'll be moving to B'ham in June. You catch a lot of Barons games?

[mojmann]

Heh, I didn't even notice you were in Birmingham. I shouldn't be telling you things you already know.

I'll be moving to B'ham in June. You catch a lot of Barons games?

I'm a season-ticket holder. My favorite game of the year is the Rickwood Classic, when the Barons dress up in old uniforms and play a game at the 97-year-old Rickwood Field. It's a great baseball experience.

My son and I go to Rickwood on a regular basis to catch Miles College games. It's a baseball paradise.

[RShack]

I'm a season-ticket holder. My favorite game of the year is the Rickwood Classic, when the Barons dress up in old uniforms and play a game at the 97-year-old Rickwood Field. It's a great baseball experience.

My son and I go to Rickwood on a regular basis to catch Miles College games. It's a baseball paradise.

It's a great place. Oldest baseball stadium in existence. Plus, you can get good ribs and cheap beer on the way from your car to the ball yard from somebody in their front yard ;-)

[howie14]

This is a debate about which I can argue either side...and do depending on the day of week, my mood, and which side has made a statement which riles me more.

I am a little surprised that Nats Park isn't a little more full for the first games. I was also surprised when they didn't draw better in 2005 when this started. Since there was no honeymoon then-probably because the DC market had adopted the Orioles so much that the non-diehards didn't feel they had been deprived since 1971-we really shouldn't expect one now.

I suspect that the Nats will be a popular ticket when they win, as the Caps are right now, and a not so popular ticket when they lose. Just like most cities.

The other side of this is that that wasn't what we were told when MLB first drummed this up. We were told that the Nats would take the smallest of chunks out of Baltimore attendance and that both teams would prosper with attendance of 30,000+ every night. No one said then, "Unless the teams lose."

Obviously, the "study" was a crock.

Right now, both of these teams are drawing the crowds they have earned. I think our "excuses" for bad crowds are a little more valid than DC's because of their new park and our decade of losing, but only a little more.

My big concern is that if the Orioles get good again, will they ever be able to draw anything close to what they drew in the '90s or even a total which would put them back in the upper third of MLB ? In other words, have the Nats made the Orioles' ceiling a whole lot lower?

College football my friend. Pro football is a few steps above arena football to many in the Deep South.

I remember when the CFL tried to invade the south in 1995. The games in Birmingham in July and early August were really well attended and it looked as though the league could survive there and in Baltimore, at the very least.

And then the colleges went back into session...

[Why Not?]

There's more than enough population in and around Baltimore and Washington to support two teams. The region as a whole has several times the population of some major league cities. The problem is that, as you said, DC simply is not a good baseball town. Everybody there who has enough money to attend major sporting events is from somewhere else so if they like the sport they're already going to have a team.

I'm not sure if this is true. Of the multi-team markets in MLB, Chicago, NY and LA are significantly larger. The SF Bay area is similar in population and one or both of those teams have always struggled at the gate. In fact, both of those teams have been on the verge of moving at various times.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I'm not sure if this is true. Of the multi-team markets in MLB, Chicago, NY and LA are significantly larger. The SF Bay area is similar in population and one or both of those teams have always struggled at the gate. In fact, both of those teams have been on the verge of moving at various times.

Not true.

Baltimore-Washington has 8+ million people. That's a million-and-a-half fewer then Chicago, and considerably less then the top two, but considerably more then the Bay Area (4.2 million), even including San Jose's area (1.8 million; 6 million total). It's also growing much faster then those areas (Baltimore 4.5%, DC 10.6%, compared to the Bay Area at 1.9% and San Jose at 3.9%; Chicago is at 4.7%).

Really, we should have two of each in baseball, football and basketball, based on population (there are 10(!) metro areas in the NBA smaller then Baltimore alone). Especially considering Baltimore is culturally and socially a separate region then Washington.

EDIT: Here's a list if anyone wants to compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropolitan_areas

[byrdz]

Not true.

Baltimore-Washington has 8+ million people. That's a million-and-a-half fewer then Chicago, and considerably less then the top two, but considerably more then the Bay Area (4.2 million), even including San Jose's area (1.8 million; 6 million total). It's also growing much faster then those areas (Baltimore 4.5%, DC 10.6%, compared to the Bay Area at 1.9% and San Jose at 3.9%; Chicago is at 4.7%).

Yeah but the problem will be getting to the games for all of the increased traffic on the roads.

[olehippi]

I posted this on one the websites given in the lead post.

Two big mistakes were made, one by MLB and one by the politicians in DC.

(1) Despite two previous franchaise failures, and a thriving baseball team only 30 miles away in Baltimore, MLB wrongly believed that a team would also thrive in the DC area. This was Selig’s desire, and he should be strung up for encouraging the other owners to go along with such an incredibly bad decision.

(2) The political powers that be in DC refused to swallow their pride and demanded a new stadium be built within the city. And then to compound there mistake, they chose one of the most horrid sections of DC for the location. This is a prime example of building a palace in the middle of a slum. A majority of people will not go there. A stadium built in No. VA would have at least given the team a better chance to survive.

I truly believe that both the O's and the Nat's will suffer for quite a few years as a result of the MLB decision. The O's will survive because they have a solid, long-time base of fans who will return when the team starts winning. The Nat's have no such base, and history has already proven that DC, for whatever reasons, will not support a ML baseball team. I don't think that will change.

[Why Not?]

Not true.

Baltimore-Washington has 8+ million people. That's a million-and-a-half fewer then Chicago, and considerably less then the top two, but considerably more then the Bay Area (4.2 million), even including San Jose's area (1.8 million; 6 million total). It's also growing much faster then those areas (Baltimore 4.5%, DC 10.6%, compared to the Bay Area at 1.9% and San Jose at 3.9%; Chicago is at 4.7%).

EDIT: Here's a list if anyone wants to compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropolitan_areas

I guess we're working off different numbers. The 2000 census has DC./Balmer with about 420K more people than the bay area.

http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t3/tab03.txt

But my point remains. The Bay Area teams have struggled at the gate. For that matter, the White Sox have been close to moving as well and have rarely been in the top third at the gate. It seems reasonable -- even likely -- that either Baltimore or Washington, or both are going to struggle to keep their ballparks full.

[DrungoHazewood]

But my point remains. The Bay Area teams have struggled at the gate.

What are you talking about? The Giants have drawn over 3 million for eight straight years, and the A's draw 2 million every year despite playing in the Al Davis Memorial Football Field.

I think the Washington-Baltimore Area would be just fine if the O's drew 3 million a year, and the Nats 2 million while they were still in RFK.