I can't get over how much Angelos has killed off the fanbase

[Porky]

4 minutes ago, Pickles said:

I guess that's kind of my point/concern.  This team drew over 2 million in 2007 after nine straight losing seasons.  They topped 2 million in 2012 after 14 consecutive losing seasons.

If they can't get to 2 million this year then the team's fanbase has been permanently reduced in a way that even winning won't solve.

Since they last won the World Series in 1983, the O's have went 2,856-3,287. That's a .465 winning percentage, or roughly 75-87 on average. 

But, that World Series Championship was 40 years ago now. A 10 year old kid in 1983 is 50 years old now. When looking at filling a stadium, you're going to have to be appealing to the 18-35 market. One, because they're a large market with expendable income. Two, they're having kids and they're an important link to the next generation of fans.

For the sake of argument, let's just assume that kids generally start actively following professional sports where they identify with a team around seven years old. A 30 year old today would have been seven years old in 2000.

Since 2000, the O's are 1,613 - 2,009. That's a .445 winning percentage for a 72-90 record.

You mentioned 2007. A 30 year old in 2007 was born in 1977. Just old enough to experience the glory days of old and the 1983 Championship. Today in 2023, that's not the case.

I think the answer for the reduced attendance is pretty simple. The O's have stunk for a long time.

Camden Yards still drew crowds in 2007 because generations of diehard, permanent fans had been cultivated from its historic success in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s. Now, in 2023, we're seeing the effects that continued losing had on a generation of potential fans who are now 18-35 years old. They might just simply not care that much about baseball because they didn't grow up with it. The O's didn't do anything to warrant their attention during their formative years.

Also, the Nationals cannot be ignored either. Plenty of DC folks are O's fans because that was the only team in the area when they grew up. They kept their O's allegiance even after the Nats moved to town. But now, that's not the case for anyone who came of age after the Nats arrived in 2005.

Hopefully with the top farm system in baseball we'll be looking at a new O's Golden Age, which will in turn attract a new generation of fans. But, I don't think we can expect attendance to rebound to past numbers just because they start winning. The damage has already been done.

[interloper]

Just now, deward said:

I had a harder time with a team that was purposefully unwatchable vs teams that tried and failed. At no point in those 14 years were those teams as hopelessly non-competitive as in the tanking years. I watched nearly every game in those earlier years, I didn't even bother turning them on most of the time in 2021.

For me the tanking years were actually kind of fun. I enjoyed watching the new Elias process unfold. The prospects were actually worth following in the minors. High draft picks were exciting. Getting into the international side for the first time in forever. 

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, deward said:

I had a harder time with a team that was purposefully unwatchable vs teams that tried and failed. At no point in those 14 years were those teams as hopelessly non-competitive as in the tanking years. I watched nearly every game in those earlier years, I didn't even bother turning them on most of the time in 2021.

Are you old enough to appreciate the utter hopelessness of the 00s Orioles?

If you are then I suggest you have a minority opinion.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

1 hour ago, Aglets said:

Something kinda nice happened in Orioles fandom about 40 years ago.   Longer than I have been around.

1983 was the first year I started really paying attention to baseball. When you're a kid you think this is normal and the Orioles will keep on winning.

Fast forward forty years later...

[Going Underground]

38 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Well, we saw the increase last year even in season so we know winning leads to more butts in the seats.

If this team is competitive all year- as I predict they will be- and they don't draw 2 million, or close, fans than we might have to wonder if the other effects on attendance besides just winning- issues we are familiar with involving the city, demographics being drawn to baseball, people staying home to watch on TV, etc.- are stronger than we know.

But to go from around 1,4 mm to 2 mm.is a big increase 

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Porky said:

Since they last won the World Series in 1983, the O's have went 2,856-3,287. That's a .465 winning percentage, or roughly 75-87 on average. 

But, that World Series Championship was 40 years ago now. A 10 year old kid in 1983 is 50 years old now. When looking at filling a stadium, you're going to have to be appealing to the 18-35 market. One, because they're a large market with expendable income. Two, they're having kids and they're an important link to the next generation of fans.

For the sake of argument, let's just assume that kids generally start actively following professional sports where they identify with a team around seven years old. A 30 year old today would have been seven years old in 2000.

Since 2000, the O's are 1,613 - 2,009. That's a .445 winning percentage for a 72-90 record.

You mentioned 2007. A 30 year old in 2007 was born in 1977. Just old enough to experience the glory days of old and the 1983 Championship. Today in 2023, that's not the case.

I think the answer for the reduced attendance is pretty simple. The O's have stunk for a long time.

Camden Yards still drew crowds in 2007 because generations of diehard, permanent fans had been cultivated from its historic success in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s. Now, in 2023, we're seeing the effects that continued losing had on a generation of potential fans who are now 18-35 years old. They might just simply not care that much about baseball because they didn't grow up with it. The O's didn't do anything to warrant their attention during their formative years.

Also, the Nationals cannot be ignored either. Plenty of DC folks are O's fans because that was the only team in the area when they grew up. They kept their O's allegiance even after the Nats moved to town. But now, that's not the case for anyone who came of age after the Nats arrived in 2005.

Hopefully with the top farm system in baseball we'll be looking at a new O's Golden Age, which will in turn attract a new generation of fans. But, I don't think we can expect attendance to rebound to past numbers just because they start winning. The damage has already been done.

I agree with you.  I don't expect this team, even a consistently successful team, to draw 3.5 million fans anymore.  

I'm just speculating on how bad the damage is, and how much winning can correct it.  It will correct it some, but not all.  I guess I'm just curious to quantify what that "not all" part consists of.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, deward said:

I had a harder time with a team that was purposefully unwatchable vs teams that tried and failed. At no point in those 14 years were those teams as hopelessly non-competitive as in the tanking years. I watched nearly every game in those earlier years, I didn't even bother turning them on most of the time in 2021.

I remember how bad the '88 season was, how the team was a laughing stock at a national level.

Elias had two seasons with a worse record than the '88 team.

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, Going Underground said:

But to go from around 1,4 mm to 2 mm.is a big increase 

To me it's not really about the increase.  It's about the total number.

If we're saying it's going to take several years of winning to get to 2 million fans than we're in esscence saying that is the ceiling of our potential attendance.

That used to be the floor.  That's problematic.

[deward]

5 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Are you old enough to appreciate the utter hopelessness of the 00s Orioles?

If you are then I suggest you have a minority opinion.

I started paying attention to them during the Why Not? season in 89, so yeah. I often have minority opinions.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, deward said:

I started paying attention to them during the Why Not? season in 89, so yeah. I often have minority opinions.

You picked a great year to start.

[Low Country Bird]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I remember how bad the '88 season was, how the team was a laughing stock at a national level.

Elias had two seasons with a worse record than the '88 team.

At least we knew exactly what Elias's plan was when he was hired.  We had little to no international presence and a rather barren farm system when he arrived.  Now we have a much bigger presence in the Latin American market and the top farm system.  We needed a total rebuild (and giving up a few seasons was going to be part of that) and that's exactly what he's done/is doing.  

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, deward said:

I started paying attention to them during the Why Not? season in 89, so yeah. I often have minority opinions.

It's of course all subjective but for me during the tank there was at least a plan which provided a light at the end of the tunnel.  There was no feeling of that for me in 2005 for instance.  

[Frobby]

In terms of alienating fans long term, I think the long drip-drip of 1998-2011 (14 years, not 20) was probably worse than having four terrible years (only 3 of which were intentionally tanked, BTW).  But, time will tell.   I don’t think attendance will rebound all at once.   

[Going Underground]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

In terms of alienating fans long term, I think the long drip-drip of 1998-2011 (14 years, not 20) was probably worse than having four terrible years (only 3 of which were intentionally tanked, BTW).  But, time will tell.   I don’t think attendance will rebound all at once.   

The Washington Post article said the Nationals will probably be below 2 million this year. Also didn't sell out Opening Day.

[Owen21]

14 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I remember how bad the '88 season was, how the team was a laughing stock at a national level.

Elias had two seasons with a worse record than the '88 team.

 

15 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I remember how bad the '88 season was, how the team was a laughing stock at a national level.

Elias had two seasons with a worse record than the '88 team.

50,000 plus fans packed Memorial when they returned from Chicago  with a W and a record of 1-21