Fangraphs: Missing Fans

[Can_of_corn]

15 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I just think that people would rather watch games from the comfort of their own homes these days.  I know I actually would.  180 bucks out the window today for tickets today.  Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to spend time with Dad and this is what he wanted to do.  

But honestly, I have no desire to go to Camden Yards anymore.  I must have been to easily over 100 games.  It's a beautiful park, I've soaked it all in.  Seen awesome things happen there.  But I just don't feel like putting forth the effort to go anymore.  Same with a closer team, the Nats.  No desire to go down there.  Same with the Redskins.

I've got a 65 inch tv with a great picture.  I can make my own food or get something delivered.  I don't have to dedicate a giant chunk of a day to commuting to a stadium.  

Why would I want to go OPACY again?

Free floppy hat?

[Orioles1954]

9 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Free floppy hat?

 

25 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I just think that people would rather watch games from the comfort of their own homes these days.  I know I actually would.  180 bucks out the window today for tickets today.  Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to spend time with Dad and this is what he wanted to do.  

But honestly, I have no desire to go to Camden Yards anymore.  I must have been to easily over 100 games.  It's a beautiful park, I've soaked it all in.  Seen awesome things happen there.  But I just don't feel like putting forth the effort to go anymore.  Same with a closer team, the Nats.  No desire to go down there.  Same with the Redskins.

I've got a 65 inch tv with a great picture.  I can make my own food or get something delivered.  I don't have to dedicate a giant chunk of a day to commuting to a stadium.  

Why would I want to go OPACY again?

We've switched our baseball money to Frederick. Around ten bucks a ticket, free parking, players give a damn, free promos every night. Much much much better ballpark experience.

[notyourbuddy]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

And the NFL, the Browns and the Patriots they've had similar levels of success right?

The main thing a hard cap will do is increase the share of profits the owners get.

The Patriots and Browns are playing by the exact same rules.  Difference in results comes down to one having a competent front office & coaching staff while the other is run by morons.    

The same thing cannot be said for MLB where a team like the Rays can find itself finishing in second to an inferior run Yankees team simply because they are being outspent 2:1.  

And why when this conversation comes up do people never mention the NHL and its floor+cap parity success?  Hockey, like baseball, requires full roster construction.  Very different than NFL/NBA franchises whose successes and failures can usually be pinpointed to a single player.

[Natty]

The best way to get fans into the baseball stadium is 10 cent beer night. I remember when Cleveland did it. The results were nothing short of spectacular. 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, notyourbuddy said:

The Patriots and Browns are playing by the exact same rules.  Difference in results comes down to one having a competent front office & coaching staff while the other is run by morons.    

The same thing cannot be said for MLB where a team like the Rays can find itself finishing in second to an inferior run Yankees team simply because they are being outspent 2:1.  

And why when this conversation comes up do people never mention the NHL and its floor+cap parity success?  Hockey, like baseball, requires full roster construction.  Very different than NFL/NBA franchises whose successes and failures can usually be pinpointed to a single player.

Because hardly anyone follows hockey.  I mean I know they have a salary cap and I know the owners have really stuck it to the players the last few years but that's about it.

 

And thanks for supporting my point, income equality doesn't guarantee parity.  If you are in favor of a cap to increase parity you're fighting the wrong fight, one doesn't lead to the other.  If you want to support the cap because you think the owners don't make enough money, well that's fine.

How a team is run is the biggest modifier on their chances of success.

[amdcpus]

1 hour ago, MongoBoy said:

Municipalities? Broke? Where I live they are paving 2 streets. Problem is, they were paved just 2 years ago. We are just a small place. They have a work force of about 30 guys. What do we need 30 guys for? Their 'Supervisor' is constantly on the phone running his landscape business. We have 2 fulltime women that work in the village office. What do they do? Count the property tax checks and water bill checks that come in once a year. The Code Enforcement officer get full time pay for being there 3-4 days a week. All he does is drive around looking for things to bother people about. Broke? Of course their broke. They spend money they don't need to.

You live in a well off area. Believe me, most places aren't even close to this.

[billw76]

35 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I just think that people would rather watch games from the comfort of their own homes these days.  I know I actually would.  180 bucks out the window today for tickets today.  Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to spend time with Dad and this is what he wanted to do.  

But honestly, I have no desire to go to Camden Yards anymore.  I must have been to easily over 100 games.  It's a beautiful park, I've soaked it all in.  Seen awesome things happen there.  But I just don't feel like putting forth the effort to go anymore.  Same with a closer team, the Nats.  No desire to go down there.  Same with the Redskins.

I've got a 65 inch tv with a great picture.  I can make my own food or get something delivered.  I don't have to dedicate a giant chunk of a day to commuting to a stadium.  

Why would I want to go OPACY again?

This is pretty much the same with me. The cost of tickets for myself and 3 kids, plus parking and gas makes it a fairly expensive day, I'd much rather watch on tv, or make the shorter less costly 30 minute drive from Charles Town to Frederick or Hagerstown.

I'm not sure how much youth participation in little leagues is down, but I have 2 boys playing and there are always decent crowds here in WV, and the area and district tournaments are even more packed. My oldest son also plays travel baseball with doubleheaders on Sunday's, and there are plenty of travel tournaments most of the year keeping parents and kids away from Major League games on weekends.

[Camden_yardbird]

Rob Manfred said in his infamous interview with Dan LeBatard that the teams that were drafting in the top 5 a few years ago were the teams in the playoffs last year.  He came out and said tanking is the best strategy to get to the post season.

The current rules have been in place long enough that the large market teams, who largely pulled back when they were implemented have now figured it out.  It only goes down hill for MLB from here.

Realignment 

Floors

Real caps

Continued small market balancing

A fixed international system

He can keep believing its the time of the game that the reason his sport is failing with fans, and not the fact that some kid in Tampa has a lot better options than investing six months in hoping his team has everything go right for a chance at the post season.

[Tx Oriole]

2 hours ago, birdwatcher55 said:

Good post. Socialism is good in this case. It's worked well for the NFL.

Socialism is never good. 

[Mondo Trasho]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

Because hardly anyone follows hockey.  I mean I know they have a salary cap and I know the owners have really stuck it to the players the last few years but that's about it.

 

And thanks for supporting my point, income equality doesn't guarantee parity.  If you are in favor of a cap to increase parity you're fighting the wrong fight, one doesn't lead to the other.  If you want to support the cap because you think the owners don't make enough money, well that's fine.

How a team is run is the biggest modifier on their chances of success.

Great points. Also, in the NFL, most of the time a team only has to win 10 out of 16 games to make it into a single elimination tournament. Much easier for a mediocre team to luck into 10 wins than 90+ wins required most years in MLB. People who look at the NFL are ignoring the sample size issue, among other factors.

I will say it's possible that there are too many teams. At one point baseball did look at contraction, perhaps it's time to revisit that issue.

Note the italics. I'm not saying I have the answer here, just a musing.

[notyourbuddy]

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

And thanks for supporting my point, income equality doesn't guarantee parity.  If you are in favor of a cap to increase parity you're fighting the wrong fight, one doesn't lead to the other.  If you want to support the cap because you think the owners don't make enough money, well that's fine.

There are a lot of factors that go into parity.  Income equality is definitely one of them. To ignore it because of the nature of other sports or pretend like everyone in favor of it loves billionaires is just a silly straw man argument. 

Soccer shows us what income inequality results in -- big markets buying up the best players every year making it hard for even well-run small-to-mid-market clubs from competing.  We have the same thing going on in baseball only the impact is less pronounced because the league has in place some other parity measures such as the June Draft & Player Control/Arbitration Rules.  

Rather than say, "baseball has some parity no need to change anything," we should be saying, "we could have even more parity if every team had similar spending power."  The fact that we can predict on one hand which teams will sign the game's best players every Free Agency (and its always the same teams) should tell you something isn't right. 

Quote

How a team is run is the biggest modifier on their chances of success.

Yep, but in a free spending league money is also a significant modifier.  Building a winning ball club with $200M sure is a lot easier than doing it with $100M.  Implementing a cap would take money out of the equation leaving "how a team is run" as the ultimate measure of success.  Wouldn't that be nice?  But if you want to support no cap because you think buying divisional titles is fun, well that's fine.  Go, Yankees?

[Dark Helmet]

5 hours ago, atomic said:

Baseball is a dying sport. Younger generations find it boring.   Kids aren't playing little league anymore.   No games on free TV makes sure inner city kids couldnt care less about it.  People watching less sports In general. 

I mentioned before peak salary has been reached.   

It also doesnt help that parents must pay hundreds of dollars just for their kids to play high school sports now. If that were the case when I was in school...i couldn't have played.

In the days of free games, I would have still watched baseball even if my team was struggling. Back in the losing 14 years, I would have watched a Cardinals or a Giants game or whoever. But not watching the unbearable Orioles this year, and free baseball being limited, I have found I don't really miss it. 

MLB and Mantra have done this to themselves. They got greedy and alienated the fans. Now they can suffer. I don't feel bad for them. They love the Yankees and Sox so much...now they can have their rivalry.  Hope the Yanks and Sox fans pays all of the bills. Because fans of other teams have had it. 

[Dark Helmet]

And a MLB cap won't stop teams like Yankees and Sox and Dodgers from buying up all the international talent. It's more than just the major league product that money affects.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, notyourbuddy said:

There are a lot of factors that go into parity.  Income equality is definitely one of them. To ignore it because of the nature of other sports or pretend like everyone in favor of it loves billionaires is just a silly straw man argument. 

Soccer shows us what income inequality results in -- big markets buying up the best players every year making it hard for even well-run small-to-mid-market clubs from competing.  We have the same thing going on in baseball only the impact is less pronounced because the league has in place some other parity measures such as the June Draft & Player Control/Arbitration Rules.  

Rather than say, "baseball has some parity no need to change anything," we should be saying, "we could have even more parity if every team had similar spending power."  The fact that we can predict on one hand which teams will sign the game's best players every Free Agency (and its always the same teams) should tell you something isn't right. 

Yep, but in a free spending league money is also a significant modifier.  Building a winning ball club with $200M sure is a lot easier than doing it with $100M.  Implementing a cap would take money out of the equation leaving "how a team is run" as the ultimate measure of success.  Wouldn't that be nice?  But if you want to support no cap because you think buying divisional titles is fun, well that's fine.  Go, Yankees?

I believe that any team that isn't financing significant debt can afford to pay a competitive payroll and not lose money.

Many of them choose not to so the ownership can make greater profits.  I think that if there is an issue that is it.

[ThomasTomasz]

4 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

I just think that people would rather watch games from the comfort of their own homes these days.  I know I actually would.  180 bucks out the window today for tickets today.  Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to spend time with Dad and this is what he wanted to do.  

But honestly, I have no desire to go to Camden Yards anymore.  I must have been to easily over 100 games.  It's a beautiful park, I've soaked it all in.  Seen awesome things happen there.  But I just don't feel like putting forth the effort to go anymore.  Same with a closer team, the Nats.  No desire to go down there.  Same with the Redskins.

I've got a 65 inch tv with a great picture.  I can make my own food or get something delivered.  I don't have to dedicate a giant chunk of a day to commuting to a stadium.  

Why would I want to go OPACY again?

 

The experience we now have at home is part of it.  I have to admit, after working long hours for Naval Academy football games in the fall (I run a store that has a strong presence at Naval Academy sporting events) and working almost until midnight, sometimes I don't want to get up and go to the Redskins game at 1 pm the next day because I know I can sleep in and have a great home experience.

That is why teams have to do more to get people like you back out to the stadium.  They need to get more creative with stuff for kids.  They need to have a rewards program for showing up to the park.  They need to incentivize people for buying season tickets, whether they are 81, 29, 13 game packages, or the summer time ones that they sometimes run.  The Pirates have 12 different benefits that season-ticket holders can do as an event, which includes batting practice on the field for season ticker holders.  You and a group of them come in, take turns in the cage and in the field.   The Orioles have taken a step with the kids cheer free and some of the "special ticket" promotions, but over 81 games and six months, you have to do quite a bit more.  

 

EDIT: and of course, winning cures quite a bit