Trouble in paradise?

Definitely too early to say if this is a trend. One week? Weather could be a factor. Perhaps lower drawing teams were disproportionately represented in the opening week.

And, even if the decline is real, lots of folks are glued to the tube watching war coverage. This will dissipate soon as the War comes to a conclusion.

If this decline holds up through the month of April, then we can call it a trend. The data are way too incomplete to draw any conclusions.

[ April 07, 2003, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

Attendance isn't down everywhere...from today's Phila. Inquirer:

Cleveland's home opener is sold out. Even with their crappy team and cold weather.

Who has the best fans anywhere

Who? I'm thinking it's the St. Louis Cardinals. wink

[quote]Charlie in the Trees:
[QUOTE] Who? I'm thinking it's the St. Louis Cardinals. wink [/quote]On this we agree completely!

GO CARDINALS!

Why, did they ever have 455 consecutive sell-outs ? eek!

No, but their attendance is consistently among the highest in baseball. They don't stop coming when the team stops contending, as happened in Cleveland last year, and as happens in most other cities.

The weather must have been a big factor in low attendance figures so far. It was in the 40's for most of opening week in KC. With the Royals on a win streak, attendance would have been higher than average, but the blustery, cold, drizzly weather kept it in the 9-15,000 range (except opening day which was sold out). Fair weather fans, in the literal sense.

I agree with St. Louis's great fan base, even though they are our cross-state nemesis. Of course they got a huge boost out of the Mark Macgwire era. Other places that sell out consistently probably have more out-of-towners; for example those who go to a game just to experience Wrigley Field or Yankee Stadium.

Kansas City, home the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum, is a baseball city with a great fan base just simmering beneath the surface, hoping and praying that they don't get the middle finger from Royals ownership for another year. They've had a love-hate relationship with baseball ever since the much-despised owner of the Athletics moved that team to Oakland in '62. People here love to go to the games to hang out, socialize, soak up the big-league atmosphere, and cheer for our lowly team at the only great stadium built during that dismal era of stadium architecture of the 60's and 70's. We cheer for our team when we are in the stands, but the problem is most of us fans only go to 3 or 4 games a year because of our sucky franchise, whereas I'd love to go 10 or 20 times a year if I thought the owners even cared about us. Nevertheless, the Royals will sell out when St. Louis, NY Yankees, and probably Anaheim are here.

As long as Major League Baseball continues to schedule games at the end of March/early April in cold-weather climates, attendance will suffer.

The lower attendance numbers this year are solely because of poor weather. Don't let anyone else convince you otherwise. Cold weather not only keeps the crowds down, but it also doesn't allow for one to "get in a baseball mood," so to speak. It's tough when one comes off a long, cold winter like those in the Midwest and northeast have, to suddenly get into a baseball mindset.

It will always be cold on a few days in April, but to think it won't consistently be cold for a protracted period of time in late March/early April is foolish. Personally, even if weather wasn't the issue, I believe starting the baseball season as early as it was scheduled this year is asinine.

IMHO, MLB should cut the season down to 154 games, cutting a week off the schedule. They should then start the season around April 10 or so, give or take a few days, and if they do so, games should be scheduled only in warmer climates or domed stadiums. This would mean those parks in colder climates wouldn't start until perhaps the 15th-20th, where the games MAY be a bit chilly, but most likely WON'T be canceled due to 6" or so of SNOW.

If MLB doesn't want to start so late, then fine, start the games around April 3-7, but again, play them all in warmer regions or under a dome. THEN move them north and east as the month progresses. With a 154-game schedule, this could mean the postseason won't go until the last week of October, where in many places it can get damn cold. Example: If the World Series had been played at all in Chicago last year--Cubs OR Sox--game time temperatures would have been in the mid-30's. Is this what MLB wants to see?

I keep hoping that one of these days, the fools who run the game would employ just a smidgeon of common sense. I won't hold my breath for this day, though.

[ April 08, 2003, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

I can agree with cutting down the schedule, but not having all opening series in warm-weather or dome cities. That would be an unfair advantage to those teams, to open up every year at home.

I agree with Ump, Joe. Besides, what's this with the issue of "fairness"? Since when must things always be "fair"?

When it comes down to "fairness" or common sense--a common sense that would mean fewer games postponed and therefore much less money lost--I say Ump's idea is right on the money.

There isn't anything unfair about opening teams' seasons in warmer climes or domed stadiums. After all, such locales are going to have to play such games there anyway, so it's best to start there.

Why the hell is San Diego playing at San Francisco in the first week of April? Why isn't San Francisco hosting a northern or northeastern team right now? Why are the Yankees playing at home so early when they could be playing the Twins in Minnesota under a dome? Why are the Dodgers hosting the DBacks, or why were the DBacks hosting the Dodgers last week?

All these warm weather teams playing each other in warm weather areas, while cold weather teams are playing each other in cold areas, is just plain asinine, as Ump has stated.

Ump, I think you should be Commissioner , if for no other reason than because you seem to love the game from your heart, something not seen in Selig and Company.

[ April 08, 2003, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

A few of the people at the Tigers/Red Sox were wearing furry parkas, with hats underneath...imagine!! :mad: :mad:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...1729EDT0276.DTL

"It was so cold, we were just trying to get our bats going and hang in there," Jimenez said.

They could also cut a few days off the season by actually scheduling doubleheaders like they used to. And I agree that the season could be cut to 154 games. But warm cold weather cities opening on the road every year is just too unfair.

St. Louis fan greatness LONG precedes Mark McGwire. The Cardinals have won 19 pennants and 10 World Series, second only to the New York Yankees. They have fielded some of the game's great stars, including Dizzy Dean, Rogers Hornsby, Joe Bottomley, Joe Medwick, Johnny Mize, Stan Musial, Bob Gibson, Roger Maris at the end of his career, Lou Brock, Keith Hernandez, and Ozzie Smith, and have gone to the series pretty much every other decade (three times in the 1980s, three times in the 1960s, many times in the 1940s, etc., going back to the 1920s). Their great managers--Branch Rickey, Franky Frisch, Billy Southworth, Red Schoendienst, Johnny Keane, Whitey Herzog, etc., are also Hall of Famers. The Cardinals have repeatedly given their fans something to cheer about, and I don't just mean Gussie Busch's horse (Clydesdale) shows and that free-flowing Anheuser-Busch beer!

Kansas City's stadium is wonderful, and when George Brett was playing, they were a team to watch. Kansas City-St. Louis cross-state rivalries are great; I'm just glad St. Louis now has the Rams to compete against KC's football team instead of the lousy Bidwill family Cardinals, who were an embarrassment.

All in all, I like Kansas City; it gets overlooked a lot, but the people there are really decent, IMHO, the jazz history is significant, and the food is delicious.

Another thing about baseball: in the old days, before covered stadia, etc., people went out in the cold weather to cheer on their teams. But there's a lot more going on nowadays, so baseball has to take a back seat until (like most summer sports) until all the other sports noise and chatter wanes a bit. Years ago the NCAAs weren't so hyped; the NBA's and NHL's seasons didn't used to extend into June; and a less popular sport like golf has really taken off in recent years (mainly because of Tiger Woods). Plus there's the cable explosion to occupy people's attentions, and many fans are so cossetted now they don't want to sit out in the cold to cheer on their teams. We shouldn't truncate the season, but what baseball could do is find a way to, as several people have suggested, schedule games to minimize teams' and fans' exposure to the cold. At least in April. Also, MORE playoff games is dumb. Baseball should not keep expanding into the winter. Make early October the cutoff--and endless season loses fans.

[ April 09, 2003, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Actually, Cleveland 'rebuilt' last year, finished in 3rd place; but still averaged 33,000 fans per game.

Actually, osufan, nobody is arguing that the Indians don't have great fans. They do. It's just that "best" is a really, really high standard. And those horrible teams that played in the awful Municipal Stadium didn't draw squat. And that's what, I think, moves St. Louis in front of them.

You'd have an easier time convincing me that Cleveland has the best pro football fans around. Although I think that's the Pittsburgh Steelers, with the Browns an extremelyclose second, based on overall loyalty, behavior and understanding of the game.

Yes, there is. Home teams generally have an advantage over visiting teams, and if a team gets off to a poor start it is very difficult to climb back into the pennant race. It is completely unfair for a team to have to start out on the road for a couple of weeks every single year just because they're in a city where the weather sometimes gets cold. Right now what we're seeing is an overreaction to an unusual weather pattern.

This sounds too similar to the idea some deep thinkers have expressed an interest in seeing: the World Series, like the Super Bowl, played at a neutral site in a dome or warm-weather city. The day that happens is the day I stop watching major league baseball forever.

Hey Charlie - Pittsburgh fans think the NFL started in 1970

As good a year as any to start --

Steelers: 4-1 in the Super Bowl since then.

Can't remember the Browns' record though -- little help?

Hats here! Get your warm hats here!

Baseball attendance still down.

One of the few teams that has seen increases: The (fill-in-the-blank) Expos.

Cardinal fans just know they're baseball's best.

I thought I'd dig up this old thread to post this column from the KC Star, following last weekend's three-game series with KC at St. Louis. Kinda humorous.

Anyone know how overall attendance figures are looking as we approach mid-season? Royals are up 26% over last year, although the average attendance is still a relatively low 20,697.

[ June 23, 2003, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: maxallen ]

Excellent column!

I imagine that either after the last interleague series ends, or at the All-Star break, there will be another article about attendance. I don't know if there's a site that keeps track of it on a day-to-day basis.

I can tell you, off the top of my head, that the Phillies' attendance is running a bit over 4,000 per game higher than last year...with some large crowds still to come--fireworks nights, the rescheduled-due-to-rain Mike Schmidt bobblehead giveaway, the final games at the Vet. Of course, the Vet closing is a unique circumstance.

MLB attendance.

This site has an interesting baseball attendance report for individual teams with comparison to last year.

The site with the comparisons isn't accurate. They're counting games that are rained out and made up as doubleheaders (not day-night separate admissions) as 0 and reducing the average per game based on that. For the Phils they have 39 games, total attendance 882,207, average 22,621. However, they count the rainouts against Oakland and Montreal as games with 0 attendance. They've actually had 37 home dates with an average of 23,843.

Okay, I did a Google search for "Royals attendance", and then I did other teams, and for each team I come up with this "ClariNet" site that has a game-by-game comparison for 2002 vs. 2003. For example, it compares home date #15 from 2002 to home date #15 from 2003, and gives the running totals for the year.

I can't figure out how to get to that part of the ClariNet site through any other route than a Google search, but for example, if you do the search for "Mariners attendance", it will be the third or fourth listing down where it says, "Seattle Mariners attendance comparison through June 19." In that case, you'll see that they are down 11% from last year, with an average attendance of 37,785.

[ June 23, 2003, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: maxallen ]

But what is the criteria for attendance though? I went to two Angels v. Dodgers games at Dodger Stadium this weekend. Crowds were announced at 51,000 and 54,000, the 54,000 being announced as a sellout (rough numbers there, don't have exact #'s). First off, sellouts at The Stadium used to be at around the high 48,000 level. So they've added 6,000 seats recently? Uh, no. In fact, I have some old baseball guides where the capacity at Dodger Stadium is consistently listed at 56,000.

Despite what my friend claims--that all the empty seats were people who were still stuck in the notoriously long and slow Dodger Stadium consession lines--there is NO WAY that those crowds were counted on the basis of bodies through the turnstiles. They had to have been based on "Tickets sold". Does anyone know what the criteria is and if it's uniform across the leagues?

[ June 23, 2003, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

Yes. those figures are based on number of tickets sold. meaning all those season ticket holders who don't show up are counted in the attendance figures too. That's the real answer. trust me.

Yeah, Ung, it had to be, or the old cliche "Hmmm...there's a lot of people here disguised as seats" would apply.

For a brief time in the Los Angeles Times, they were running the actual bodies-through-turnstiles in the Attendance part of the box scores. That ended pretty swiftly. The NFL used to do a no-show stat but they realized that publicizing how many people didn't show up was not good business.

And I saw this little snippet in yesterday's sports page: A little over the top, perhaps, but if MLB doesn't do a better job of marketing to young kids, the game will surely wither on the vine. I don't think it's automatic that another generation is going to start showing up when they get their first car.