Boswell on Attendance

[jim busby]

The Nats will have some attendance issues this year, especially if they fall out of the race very early (as I expect they will). However, as to last night:

1. Sunday night is not the most attractive time to go to a ballgame.

2. The crowd was still 50% larger than the Orioles' smallest crowd this year.

Frobby, your reasoning and your numbers are beyond reproach, as usual, and I hesitate to challenge you.

But the most vociferous proponents of moving the Expos to D.C. swore incessantly that the District was so starved for baseball, the fans would pack the ballpark no matter what.

I didn't buy it, nor did a lot of people. However, I have to say that I did expect the Nats to draw quite well for a couple of years, just from the sheer newness of the experience.

Didn't you?

[mojmann]

However, I have to say that I did expect the Nats to draw quite well for a couple of years, just from the sheer newness of the experience.

Didn't you?

You're absolutely right, Jim. We're told by folks like Boswell that the marketing apparatus isn't in place, and that's why attendance is low in D.C.

But the amount of free marketing they receive -- in the newspapers and on TV -- is enormous. You would have to be living in a cave in New Mexico to not know that Washington has a team that plays in RFK Stadium.

Prediction: This team will be much like Colorado and Arizona. They'll get a short-lived bump after moving into the new stadium (which will be inconvient to get to, it seems) and then they'll draw poorly.

D.C. is a transient town with lots of distractions and diversions -- and a national legislature that goes home in the summertime.

[mojmann]

Well, the honeymoon is over in old D.C.

From the A.P.:

"Washington fell to 1-5 at home this season, and the announced crowd of 19,264 was the smallest at 46,382-capacity RFK Stadium since baseball returned to the capital, eclipsing Sunday night's previous low of 21,569."

This team is in its second year of existence. Can't you just feel the baseball passion in D.C.?

What a freakin' mess Major League Baseball has created ...

[TonySoprano]

Freakin' mess? Check out the attendance they had in Montreal

[BaltimoreTerp]

Freakin' mess? Check out the attendance they had in Montreal

They were supposed to have BETTER attendence in DC...

[TonySoprano]

They were supposed to have BETTER attendence in DC...

And they do. It is far better than Montreal and better than Baltimore.

[mojmann]

And they do. It is far better than Montreal and better than Baltimore.

They're in their second year of existence! You would think they would still be packing them in .... wouldn't you?

[jim busby]

And they do. It is far better than Montreal and better than Baltimore.

Tony,

I was (and remain) a stubborn opponent of baseball in D.C. I freely admit, I'm selfish, I wanted the entire area for the Orioles, but obviously, that never again will be the case.

I point that out because I probably am the world's biggest skeptic about whether D.C. will support a team. I saw D.C. lose two teams already, and I have always assumed that D.C. simply isn't a good baseball town.

The D.C. zealots blame bad owners -- Calvin Griffith and Bob Short -- for losing the Senators twice. Those same zealots swear the area has grown so large that plenty of fans will flock to the ballpark. (Conveniently, the zealots leave out the fact that Los Angeles, whose size overpowers the Baltimore-D.C. area, has lost two NFL teams. The issue isn't sheer size, but the zealots ignore that.)

So the zealots assured us the Nationals would be on sound footing right away, that the Nationals would make plenty of money and be a huge asset to Major League Baseball.

Heck, even though I routinely skewer those zealots, they had me convinced that, at least for a few years, the sheer novelty of having a baseball team in Washington would draw massive crowds to the ballpark. For that matter, if every politician, newspaper columnist and editorial writer who lobbied for a team in D.C. went to every game and took along just one friend, the park would sell out every single night.

But here we are, only a little more than a year after the gala return of baseball to D.C., and we already are seeing a return to what we saw in Washington teams' first two incarnations: disappointing attendance.

Yeah, the crowds are better than Montreal's, and better (to date) than the Orioles' this season, but that's hardly the way the zealots presented their case.

And when anyone has the nerve to point out that the crowds are far from sellouts, the zealots have their excuses lined up like so many dominoes: The Nats aren't on TV (as if anyone in D.C. could possibly not know the team is there); the Nats lack an owner who will spend on promotions (ahhhhhh, now we know what the zealots were saying about D.C. fans: They don't love baseball, they love "Floppy Hat Night"); the weather was bad, the game started at midnight on Easter Sunday, the third base coach had a toothache, blah-blah-blah.

My point all along has been this: If D.C. gets a team, and both the D.C. team and the Orioles prosper, great, I'll admit I was wrong; but if D.C. gets a team, and both the D.C. team and the Orioles suffer, well, then it will be too late to turn back. Two teams, 40 miles apart, will be beating each other's brains out from now until the end of time.

At a time we should be concentrating on beating the Yankees and Red Sox, the Orioles will be locked in a battle for survival with the Washington Nationals.

[Frobby]

Frobby, your reasoning and your numbers are beyond reproach, as usual, and I hesitate to challenge you.

But the most vociferous proponents of moving the Expos to D.C. swore incessantly that the District was so starved for baseball, the fans would pack the ballpark no matter what.

I didn't buy it, nor did a lot of people. However, I have to say that I did expect the Nats to draw quite well for a couple of years, just from the sheer newness of the experience.

Didn't you?

I think there are a number of factors at play. First and foremost, it is obvious that this year's team is going to stink. And I don't just mean they will finish under .500. They will be lucky to win 70 games IMO.

Second, the team just didn't do much in the offseason to generate excitement. They lost some key players, and their main addition (Soriano) spent most of the offseason saying he wouldn't play anywhere but 2B. So the fans haven't exactly warmed to him.

Third, don't pooh-pooh the lack of marketing and TV coverage. It makes a huge difference. The team has almost no identity. Their biggest star is their manager. It's hard even to follow who they are playing next. It is very noticeable.

Fourth, until MLB wakes up and names an owner, the entire franchise has an interim feel to it. The President is a lame duck, the GM is on a 6-month contract, even Frank Robinson doesn't know if he will be retained. You just don't have a feeling of stability and permanence about the team. There is nobody to stand up and say what the plan is.

Finally, it is normal for a team in a new city to have an attendance drop in its second year, when some of the novelty has worn off. Just look at the 4 most recent expansion teams:

Tampa -38%

Florida -37%

Colorado -27%

Arizona -16%

So overall, I am not surprised that the Nats' attendance is down significantly. My guess is that next year, when they will have an owner who presumably will do some things to generate some attention, attendance will increase, though probably not to the level of 2005.

[Frobby]

Tony,

I was (and remain) a stubborn opponent of baseball in D.C. I freely admit, I'm selfish, I wanted the entire area for the Orioles, but obviously, that never again will be the case.

I point that out because I probably am the world's biggest skeptic about whether D.C. will support a team. I saw D.C. lose two teams already, and I have always assumed that D.C. simply isn't a good baseball town.

The D.C. zealots blame bad owners -- Calvin Griffith and Bob Short -- for losing the Senators twice. Those same zealots swear the area has grown so large that plenty of fans will flock to the ballpark. (Conveniently, the zealots leave out the fact that Los Angeles, whose size overpowers the Baltimore-D.C. area, has lost two NFL teams. The issue isn't sheer size, but the zealots ignore that.)

So the zealots assured us the Nationals would be on sound footing right away, that the Nationals would make plenty of money and be a huge asset to Major League Baseball.

Heck, even though I routinely skewer those zealots, they had me convinced that, at least for a few years, the sheer novelty of having a baseball team in Washington would draw massive crowds to the ballpark. For that matter, if every politician, newspaper columnist and editorial writer who lobbied for a team in D.C. went to every game and took along just one friend, the park would sell out every single night.

But here we are, only a little more than a year after the gala return of baseball to D.C., and we already are seeing a return to what we saw in Washington teams' first two incarnations: disappointing attendance.

Yeah, the crowds are better than Montreal's, and better (to date) than the Orioles' this season, but that's hardly the way the zealots presented their case.

And when anyone has the nerve to point out that the crowds are far from sellouts, the zealots have their excuses lined up like so many dominoes: The Nats aren't on TV (as if anyone in D.C. could possibly not know the team is there); the Nats lack an owner who will spend on promotions (ahhhhhh, now we know what the zealots were saying about D.C. fans: They don't love baseball, they love "Floppy Hat Night"); the weather was bad, the game started at midnight on Easter Sunday, the third base coach had a toothache, blah-blah-blah.

My point all along has been this: If D.C. gets a team, and both the D.C. team and the Orioles prosper, great, I'll admit I was wrong; but if D.C. gets a team, and both the D.C. team and the Orioles suffer, well, then it will be too late to turn back. Two teams, 40 miles apart, will be beating each other's brains out from now until the end of time.

At a time we should be concentrating on beating the Yankees and Red Sox, the Orioles will be locked in a battle for survival with the Washington Nationals.

A couple of things. First of all, please show me ANYWHERE where anyone was prediciting that a team in DC would draw sellouts every night. I don't know why anyone ever would have believed that. I think all that DC ever showed was that it could do better than the other cities that were looking for a franchise, such as Las Vegas or Portland.

Second, please don't blame the Orioles' attendance problems on the Nats. The Orioles' attendance dropped by more than a million fans a year before the Nats ever showed up. When the Nats did show up, the O's attendance dropped by 120,000.

I have lived in the DC area my whole life, which goes back to the era when the Senators were in Washington. I always have been a rabid Orioles fan. When the Senators left town, it was barely a blip on my radar screen. And now that the Nats are here, I have been to a few games at RFK, but it is still the Orioles who I watch every night and obsess about all day.

But if the Orioles attendance is dropping, please understand that DC is not the major cause. Losing is the major cause. Plain and simple. Put a winning team on the field and the fans will come back to Camden Yards regardless of what is going on in DC.

[osfan83]

A couple of things. First of all, please show me ANYWHERE where anyone was prediciting that a team in DC would draw sellouts every night. I don't know why anyone ever would have believed that. I think all that DC ever showed was that it could do better than the other cities that were looking for a franchise, such as Las Vegas or Portland.

Second, please don't blame the Orioles' attendance problems on the Nats. The Orioles' attendance dropped by more than a million fans a year before the Nats ever showed up. When the Nats did show up, the O's attendance dropped by 120,000.

I have lived in the DC area my whole life, which goes back to the era when the Senators were in Washington. I always have been a rabid Orioles fan. When the Senators left town, it was barely a blip on my radar screen. And now that the Nats are here, I have been to a few games at RFK, but it is still the Orioles who I watch every night and obsess about all day.

But if the Orioles attendance is dropping, please understand that DC is not the major cause. Losing is the major cause. Plain and simple. Put a winning team on the field and the fans will come back to Camden Yards regardless of what is going on in DC.

The real test will be when one team is a playoff caliber team when the other team is struggling. How bad will attendance be for the struggling team? 19k a night? 14k a night, 9k a night?

[Frobby]

The real test will be when one team is a playoff caliber team when the other team is struggling. How bad will attendance be for the struggling team? 19k a night? 14k a night, 9k a night?

Good question. Wake me up when there is a playoff caliber team in either city.

[mojmann]

and better than Baltimore.

That's part of the freakin' mess I'm referring to.

[jim busby]

A couple of things. First of all, please show me ANYWHERE where anyone was prediciting that a team in DC would draw sellouts every night. I don't know why anyone ever would have believed that. I think all that DC ever showed was that it could do better than the other cities that were looking for a franchise, such as Las Vegas or Portland.

Second, please don't blame the Orioles' attendance problems on the Nats. The Orioles' attendance dropped by more than a million fans a year before the Nats ever showed up. When the Nats did show up, the O's attendance dropped by 120,000.

I have lived in the DC area my whole life, which goes back to the era when the Senators were in Washington. I always have been a rabid Orioles fan. When the Senators left town, it was barely a blip on my radar screen. And now that the Nats are here, I have been to a few games at RFK, but it is still the Orioles who I watch every night and obsess about all day.

But if the Orioles attendance is dropping, please understand that DC is not the major cause. Losing is the major cause. Plain and simple. Put a winning team on the field and the fans will come back to Camden Yards regardless of what is going on in DC.

Well, first of all, I have never asserted that anyone predicted sellouts every night. You're doing what a good debater does, you're taking the extreme and saying, "See, you're wrong."

Of course, sellouts every night would be ludicrous.

I did say the predictions were for massive crowds, and I certainly bought into it. I certainly thought the Nats would be the hot new thing in a trendy town such as D.C., and I thought the heat from their arrival would keep attendance high for at least a couple of years.

Second, at no time did I ever say that the Nationals were the No. 1 cause of the Orioles' attendance woes last season and this season.

I think you would have to be blind to think the Nationals have caused no dropoff in the Orioles' attendance. But I wholeheartedly agree that the Orioles' lack of success is by far the No. 1 reason for the dropoff in attendance at Camden Yards.

Over time, as the Nationals do the things a stable team does, I worry that they will take a significant number of fans from the Orioles. And that brings us full circle to the issue of: Is this area big enough to support two teams?

My point never has been that bad teams in each city will succeed. I agree, bad teams just about anywhere are going to fail to draw big crowds.

What I worry about is whether this area can support two good teams, and when I say that, I have to ask: Which comes first, the good team or the crowd?

Without a good team, you don't draw, so you can't afford to pay for excellent players; but without excellent players, you can't have a good team.

I just see the Orioles and Nationals each chasing their tails for the next, oh, century or so, or at least until Cal Ripken Jr.'s son breaks Cal's record of 2,632.

Two teams can thrive in New York and in LA because both of those areas have gigantic populations. The Cubs and White Sox (of late) can co-exist because they can compete for division titles without trying to keep financial pace with teams such as the Yankees, Mets and Red Sox. The Oakland-SF situation is never very comfortable for either team, and I suspect the Giants will lose a lot of their attendance once Bonds leaves.

I sure hope I'm wrong about the threat the Nationals pose. I sure hope either Angelos wakes up (um, yeah, I know, but I hope that anyway), or we get a better owner, and he or she fulfills the promises Angelos made, to keep us competitive.

I sure hope that, when we do have a better owner (a wide-awake Angelos or someone else), we'll chart a smart course toward excellence, and both the Orioles and the Nationals will thrive.

I simply have serious doubts about that outcome, and I think the presence of the Nationals makes it even more doubtful.

[mojmann]

Tampa -38%

Florida -37%

Colorado -27%

Arizona -16%

This is true, Frobby. And they all showing that they stink as long-term baseball markets.

Baseball should never have expanded in 1993 or 1998. But they wanted the quick payoff.

Baseball should never have moved to D.C., within 35 miles of Baltimore. But, again, they want the quick payoff.

Baltimore isn't the only one that's going to pay for this short-sightedness. I think we're seeing a hint of that now.

Angelos was completely right. Instead of one franchise on solid financial footing, baseball has created two franchises that will constantly struggle unless they're winning.