Orioles attendance 2024

[emmett16]

On 6/13/2024 at 8:58 AM, LookitsPuck said:

It's been the case time and time again - win and the fans will show up. It's not "crime" or the perception of crime in Baltimore. It's winning, folks.

Nor is it about signing FA.  It's about winning plane and simple. 

[Frobby]

23 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

Nor is it about signing FA.  It's about winning plane and simple. 

Well, yes and no.  It still remains to be seen how high attendance can go.   Let’s say that attendance this year falls 150,000 short of 2014.   (I’m not saying it will, but that’s not implausible at present.)   At that point, I think you have to ask why.  That 2014 team was in its third straight winning season and was the best team we’d had in a long time.  This 2024 team is in its third straight winning season and is probably the best team we’ve had in several decades.   So how did we lose 150,000 fans (if that turns out to be the situation)?   The O’s were 14th in MLB in attendance in 2014, they’re 18th now despite the great team they have.  

[Warehouse]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

Well, yes and no.  It still remains to be seen how high attendance can go.   Let’s say that attendance this year falls 150,000 short of 2014.   (I’m not saying it will, but that’s not implausible at present.)   At that point, I think you have to ask why.  That 2014 team was in its third straight winning season and was the best team we’d had in a long time.  This 2024 team is in its third straight winning season and is probably the best team we’ve had in several decades.   So how did we lose 150,000 fans (if that turns out to be the situation)?   The O’s were 14th in MLB in attendance in 2014, they’re 18th now despite the great team they have.  

If we increase attendance by 27% in line with the current trend, then we should end up with ~2.46MM (up from ~1.94MM) which is about equal to 2014.  It seems like we could end up 150K short or exceed 2014 by 150k.

If we do fall short, I’d bet part of the gap will be due to lower corporate sales (e.g., m&a moving HQs out of city; more corporates cancelling plans since 90s peak) and fewer games vs the Yankees and Red Sox.

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, Warehouse said:

If we increase attendance by 27% in line with the current trend, then we should end up with ~2.46MM (up from ~1.94MM) which is about equal to 2014.  It seems like we could end up 150K short or exceed 2014 by 150k.

If we do fall short, I’d bet part of the gap will be due to lower corporate sales (e.g., m&a moving HQs out of city; more corporates cancelling plans since 90s peak) and fewer games vs the Yankees and Red Sox.

Right, I think all those things will warrant analysis.   But as you point out, the team may not fall short of 2014.   We'll see.  

[Rbiggs2525]

I believe it is cost and technology based. The TV technology now is great. Gas, food, drinks, parking, tickets have all increase 25% or more.

[baltfan]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

Well, yes and no.  It still remains to be seen how high attendance can go.   Let’s say that attendance this year falls 150,000 short of 2014.   (I’m not saying it will, but that’s not implausible at present.)   At that point, I think you have to ask why.  That 2014 team was in its third straight winning season and was the best team we’d had in a long time.  This 2024 team is in its third straight winning season and is probably the best team we’ve had in several decades.   So how did we lose 150,000 fans (if that turns out to be the situation)?   The O’s were 14th in MLB in attendance in 2014, they’re 18th now despite the great team they have.  

On top of what you are saying, the Nationals are not good this year.  In 2014 they were 96-66 and won the NL East.  I suppose you could blame it on the Nationals' fan base becoming more loyal after they won the World Series.

[baltfan]

28 minutes ago, Warehouse said:

If we increase attendance by 27% in line with the current trend, then we should end up with ~2.46MM (up from ~1.94MM) which is about equal to 2014.  It seems like we could end up 150K short or exceed 2014 by 150k.

If we do fall short, I’d bet part of the gap will be due to lower corporate sales (e.g., m&a moving HQs out of city; more corporates cancelling plans since 90s peak) and fewer games vs the Yankees and Red Sox.

Another thing to consider is that we have far fewer games against the AL East than previously because of the balanced schedule.  Previously, the Orioles played 24 more games against the division.  Presumably, half of those, 12, would have been at Camden Yards.  That is 6 fewer games from big draws like NYY and BOS.  

[Frobby]

28 minutes ago, baltfan said:

Another thing to consider is that we have far fewer games against the AL East than previously because of the balanced schedule.  Previously, the Orioles played 24 more games against the division.  Presumably, half of those, 12, would have been at Camden Yards.  That is 6 fewer games from big draws like NYY and BOS.  

I will say though, those teams don’t draw like they used to, especially Boston.  For example, here are some weeknight crowds back in 2005 for those teams:

4/20 36 K

4/21 40 K

6/27 46 K

6/28 47 K

7/7 47 K

9/26 43 K

This year we averaged 24 K for the four weeknight Yankees games and 18.5 K for two games against Boston on Tuesday/Wednesday.

 

 

 

[Allan Bryant]

35 minutes ago, baltfan said:

Another thing to consider is that we have far fewer games against the AL East than previously because of the balanced schedule.  Previously, the Orioles played 24 more games against the division.  Presumably, half of those, 12, would have been at Camden Yards.  That is 6 fewer games from big draws like NYY and BOS.  

You made a good point. On the flip side, someone might be interested in seeing the Dodgers , Giants, Cards , Cubs , Phillies, etc , these teams are popular and their fans travel well. Some fans might tired of seeing the same teams all the time . 

[baltfan]

2 hours ago, Allan Bryant said:

You made a good point. On the flip side, someone might be interested in seeing the Dodgers , Giants, Cards , Cubs , Phillies, etc , these teams are popular and their fans travel well. Some fans might tired of seeing the same teams all the time . 

The Phillies argument is a good one because they are close and fans will travel.  The NYY and BOS games were partially driven by their fans.  

[Allan Bryant]

49 minutes ago, baltfan said:

The Phillies argument is a good one because they are close and fans will travel.  The NYY and BOS games were partially driven by their fans.  

Thank you. Even if they are not Orioles fans , their visits counts as attendance and their money does add up, economically speaking. 

[Bemorewins]

6 hours ago, emmett16 said:

Nor is it about signing FA.  It's about winning plane and simple. 

Well, historically speaking in the game of baseball, winning World Series has required at least a mid tier payroll (which is a far cry from where we are now).

So, if by “winning” you mean winning a championship I agree that will draw fans/engage the community’s interest/attention. However, in order to do that it has required some level of investment from ownership (at least an average payroll type of level).

But if you mean by “winning” to simply have a winning season, I don’t after a few seasons that will continue to hold/draw community interest/grow the fanbase/increase attendance, if you don’t spend money or have stars that people want to see/follow. Tampa and Cleveland are examples of “winning” that doesn’t equate to higher attendance/community engagement/marketplace interest.

San Diego on the other hand, has not won anything yet (save for one championship series birth), however they have excellent attendance/community engagement/market place growth.

[emmett16]

52 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Well, historically speaking in the game of baseball, winning World Series has required at least a mid tier payroll (which is a far cry from where we are now).

So, if by “winning” you mean winning a championship I agree that will draw fans/engage the community’s interest/attention. However, in order to do that it has required some level of investment from ownership (at least an average payroll type of level).

But if you mean by “winning” to simply have a winning season, I don’t after a few seasons that will continue to hold/draw community interest/grow the fanbase/increase attendance, if you don’t spend money or have stars that people want to see/follow. Tampa and Cleveland are examples of “winning” that doesn’t equate to higher attendance/community engagement/marketplace interest.

San Diego on the other hand, has not won anything yet (save for one championship series birth), however they have excellent attendance/community engagement/market place growth.

 

7 hours ago, Frobby said:

Well, yes and no.  It still remains to be seen how high attendance can go.   Let’s say that attendance this year falls 150,000 short of 2014.   (I’m not saying it will, but that’s not implausible at present.)   At that point, I think you have to ask why.  That 2014 team was in its third straight winning season and was the best team we’d had in a long time.  This 2024 team is in its third straight winning season and is probably the best team we’ve had in several decades.   So how did we lose 150,000 fans (if that turns out to be the situation)?   The O’s were 14th in MLB in attendance in 2014, they’re 18th now despite the great team they have.  

I characterize “winning” as having a winning culture and established high level of play.  I don’t think we had that in the 2012-2016 run.  I think even the most orange tinted glasses saw that was a very short window with nothing to come after.  What we have now, and what the Ravens have established, is the ground work for continued winning and high level play. Above and beyond the on field accomplishments the organization is doing all the right things off the field and nurturing a relationship with the fans in a “winning” manner.  Winning was never the focus in the past.  Even the most ardent haters can see that winning is here for the foreseeable future on and off the field. 

Edited Friday at 21:47 by emmett16

[Frobby]

16 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

 

I characterize “winning” as having a winning culture and established high level of play.  I don’t think we had that in the 2012-2016 run.  I think even the most orange tinted glasses saw that was a very short window with nothing to come after.  What we have now, and what the Ravens have established, is the ground work for continued winning and high level play. Above and beyond the on field accomplishments the organization is doing all the right things off the field and nurturing a relationship with the fans in a “winning” manner.  Winning was never the focus in the past.  Even the most ardent haters can see that winning is here for the foreseeable future on and off the field. 

Well, I do think David Rubenstein bought the team thinking he can grow the pie by building on what Elias has done with the on-the-field product and showing the fan base some love and respect.  It will be interesting to see if he’s right.  I hope he is.  

[Bemorewins]

48 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

 

I characterize “winning” as having a winning culture and established high level of play.  I don’t think we had that in the 2012-2016 run.  I think even the most orange tinted glasses saw that was a very short window with nothing to come after.  What we have now, and what the Ravens have established, is the ground work for continued winning and high level play. Above and beyond the on field accomplishments the organization is doing all the right things off the field and nurturing a relationship with the fans in a “winning” manner.  Winning was never the focus in the past.  Even the most ardent haters can see that winning is here for the foreseeable future on and off the field. 

I don’t disagree with anything you stated and appreciate how you articulated your position regarding the creation of a winning culture in a similar manner to the other pro org in town.

I would argue that in order to maintain a “winning” culture and the fanbase/market place’s confidence in that partly includes retaining and/or acquiring elite talent. Doing things constantly on the cheap AND not winning the ultimate prize (i.e. the Rays) will lead to some apathy eventually as fans/people in the community start to develop the notion that doing what it takes to obtain the ultimate prize (championship) is not as important to the owner as it is to them. There is a hopelessness that can set in with such a scenario. And if there is one thing that sports needs to sell it is hope.