Philadelphia and Baltimore

[weams]

Yes. It's the greatest picture ever posted on this site.

BTW, can anyone care to explain to me why the Phillies would go 162-0 versus the White Sox this year if they played 162 times?

Hint, it's in the "data" that has been provided here already

Ozzie is afraid of Charlie Manuel. His team can smell the fear.

[crowmst3k!]

No mention of the fact that Philly is 2-3x Baltimore's size with a larger suburb base? Basically, Philly has three things going for it that we can't replicate:

- Market Size (Philly is the 5th-6th biggest city in America, Baltimore is about 20th)

I wouldn't worry about the market size, as MASN is a regional network spanning the entire Maryland, DC, and NOVA markets, and the O's own that network. Combined, I'd say the two markets are comparable.

Also, when the O's win, they have no trouble filling Camden Yards or getting great TV ratings. For example: packed house for Wieters' debut in 2009, also the final game of Buck Showalter's first series against the Angels when the O's went for the sweep was the #1 rated program in the market that night (someone on 105.7 talked about it).

The money potential is there for the O's. Indeed, they have to get their homegrown guys to start really producing before they bring in the extra premium pieces.

[Phantom]

Also, when the O's win, they have no trouble filling Camden Yards or getting great TV ratings. For example: packed house for Wieters' debut in 2009, also the final game of Buck Showalter's first series against the Angels when the O's went for the sweep was the #1 rated program in the market that night (someone on 105.7 talked about it).

I liked your post, but I'm not so sure about this point in the post-Nationals era. The O's played .600 ball for the first half of the year in 2005, yet attendance lagged.

[Jagwar]

This has to be the most frustrating 6 pages of any Hangout thread that I have ever read.

[crowmst3k!]

I liked your post, but I'm not so sure about this point in the post-Nationals era. The O's played .600 ball for the first half of the year in 2005, yet attendance lagged.

I haven't really seen any of the attendance figures for 2005, but I would suspect that more than a half of good baseball is going to be needed to really get them back.

2008 it seemed that more people were attending during that improbable first half where the O's hung around .500 for a while, but it died down once the O's came back to earth. It wasn't mid 1990's attendance, but it wasn't the ghost town that Camden Yards can be some nights.

I also know that the novelty of the Nationals will die down, and they will have to put up, as well. I don't think the Nats will draw away the fans just because they exist. Their attendance is nothing to write home about.

[Phantom]

I haven't really seen any of the attendance figures for 2005, but I would suspect that more than a half of good baseball is going to be needed to really get them back.

2008 it seemed that more people were attending during that improbable first half where the O's hung around .500 for a while, but it died down once the O's came back to earth. It wasn't mid 1990's attendance, but it wasn't the ghost town that Camden Yards can be some nights.

I also know that the novelty of the Nationals will die down, and they will have to put up, as well. I don't think the Nats will draw away the fans just because they exist. Their attendance is nothing to write home about.

This all could possibly be true, and I'm hoping it is. I'm just saying that it is not a certainty that winning would bring our revenue to Philadelphia levels.

[TinCup]

Aleks, that would be "Name two cities on the east Coast of the U.S?"

I'll take "Potent Potables" next for $1000.

[DannyO]

This has to be the most frustrating 6 pages of any Hangout thread that I have ever read.

Agreed, however I'd love to face any of the individuals who took issue with my arguments here in court. They simply could not muster a logical argument based on supporting data, and most were all over the map. I would have moved for summary judgement, and no doubt would have obtained it.

[SrMeowMeow]

Agreed, however I'd love to face any of the individuals who took issue with my arguments here in court. They simply could not muster a logical argument based on supporting data, and most were all over the map. I would have moved for summary judgement, and no doubt would have obtained it.

I think things got a little snarkier than good manners would dictate, but seriously, the things you have been saying are FALSE (no, I'm not talking about the W-L records you quoted). They are incorrect. They are not up for debate. Stop acting like a martyr.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Agreed, however I'd love to face any of the individuals who took issue with my arguments here in court. They simply could not muster a logical argument based on supporting data, and most were all over the map. I would have moved for summary judgement, and no doubt would have obtained it.

You would be laughed out of the Courtroom.

[DannyO]

I wouldn't worry about the market size, as MASN is a regional network spanning the entire Maryland, DC, and NOVA markets, and the O's own that network. Combined, I'd say the two markets are comparable.

This is correct, and actually the Baltimore/Washington market is bigger. Even more important, Philly's market size is irrelevant. I'm from Philadelphia and lived there most of my life.

The Phillies are simply a temporary fad in Philadelphia, and it will change when they begin to lose again as has happened before. It's a poor baseball town and most of the people going to the games in Philly have little appreciation for what they are watching. I have a lot of family and friends in Philly, and they are not excited about the Phillies as people here would be about the O's under the same circumstances.

Until recent years, somewhat after they built the new ballpark, the Phillies were one of the worst attended teams in all of baseball. The only time they drew a full stadium of fans was on July 4th for fireworks night. When interleague play was introduced, and all teams had an attrendance spike for interleague play, the Phillies barely had a spike at all. People chanted "let's go Eagles" during the Phillies home games. They came up with gimmicks such as shooting hot dogs into the stands during games to attract fans.

I watched Veterns Stadium open and become one of the most attended ballparks in the country in it's early years, when the club became good, only to become mostly an empty cavern when the team declined.

While the Orioles were drawing 3.8 million at Camden Yards, the Phils were drawing half that at Veterns Stadium. Something along those lines will happen again when the fortunes of the respective teams reverse, which they will.

I remember the days when the Phillies drew 600,000 fans at Connie Mack Stadium.

Historical perspective is important, because things can and will change.

Market size did not assure the Phillies great attendance in the past, and won't in the future because the core base of support for the ballclub is not ingrained into the community, as has been and continues to be in Baltimore.

[Icterus galbula]

this has to be the most frustrating 6 pages of any hangout thread that i have ever read.

MORE data needed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DannyO]

If this is your belief, then please stop talking about statistical analysis because you simply don't understand one of the basic tenets of the whole idea. Which you should get simply by watching baseball and seeing slumps and hot streaks and good years and bad years.

I did not talk about statistical analysis as you claim. I presented empirical evidence and logic. Others presented opinion derived from what they probably considered to be conventional wisdom, but no evidence or logic since there was none to support their opinion. All of the facts were on my side.

They, in essence, took the approach "if you can't argue the facts, argue the law".

We're not talking about slumps, good, or bad years. We're talking about head to head competition, over a period of five years, between the elite team in the NL East vs. all teams of the AL East. The Phils lost head to head, every year, against every team, by a wide margin, aggregating to a large sample size over an exptended period. End of Story!

Someone asked how the 2011 Phils would fare in the AL East. I believe they would win between 85-90 games, and finish 2nd or 3rd. They are a good team, but not an elite team all things considered.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I did not talk about statistical analysis as you claim. I presented empirical evidence and logic. Others presented opinion derived from what they probably considered to be conventional wisdom, but no evidence or logic since there was none to support their opinion. All of the facts were on my side.

They, in essence, took the approach "if you can't argue the facts, argue the law".

We're not talking about slumps, good, or bad years. We're talking about head to head competition, over a period of five years, between the elite team in the NL East vs. all teams of the AL East. The Phils lost head to head, every year, against every team, by a wide margin, aggregating to a large sample size over an exptended period. End of Story!

Someone asked how the 2011 Phils would fare in the AL East. I believe they would win between 85-90 games, and finish 2nd or 3rd. They are a good team, but not an elite team all things considered.

Small samples over a long period do not equal a large sample size. It is that simple, and if you actually were using logic you would see that because adding up a bunch of 4-0s and 1-2s against teams that change year-to-year is simply illogical.

As one more example, over the past five years the Rays had two seasons among the worst teams in baseball, and three seasons among the best. How can your sample compare for that kind of change in a team?

That's why it is illogical, and that is why you are wrong. You are using small sample sizes no matter what you want to call them, and until you can acknowledge that there is no room for discussion and nothing to take away from your argument.

[Crazysilver03]

I did not talk about statistical analysis as you claim. I presented empirical evidence and logic. Others presented opinion derived from what they probably considered to be conventional wisdom, but no evidence or logic since there was none to support their opinion. All of the facts were on my side.

They, in essence, took the approach "if you can't argue the facts, argue the law".

We're not talking about slumps, good, or bad years. We're talking about head to head competition, over a period of five years, between the elite team in the NL East vs. all teams of the AL East. The Phils lost head to head, every year, against every team, by a wide margin, aggregating to a large sample size over an exptended period. End of Story!

Someone asked how the 2011 Phils would fare in the AL East. I believe they would win between 85-90 games, and finish 2nd or 3rd. They are a good team, but not an elite team all things considered.

You presented empirical evidence. That is correct.

As I stated, it does not suffice the sample size rule. I taught Statistics at the University of Delaware. I am quite aware of what I am am talking about.