|
Jacobs Field's Average Attendance Slowly Climbs
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2007 12:08 PM
Jacobs Field's Average Attendance Slowly Climbs
There was a good article earlier in the year by one of the Insiders on attendance on Tribe games. Though I can't discuss the article, I can say that as the Tribe has started to win, and has shown that they are going to make the post season, the fans have slowly responded. Earlier in the year attendance was down due to the wet and cold spring, and later due to the Indians slumping, but now attendance is slowly turning around. Despite having at least 4 of our home games moved, which would account for somewhere around a loss of 120,000 in attendance, Tribe fans have posted the best attendance mark since 2003. Even just a few short weeks ago, Sept 9th to be exact, average attendance was 27,593. 3 weeks later, average attendance has increased to 28,039. This might not seem like much, but its a significant increase in terms of average attendance, especially considering that average attendance figures earlier in the year were even lower than the Sept 9th figure. It takes a lot to boost a number like that when you have to average in about 80 games, so the fan's late season response was significant in boosting that number. For the last few weeks Tribe fans have been turning out attendance of around 30,000 to 32,000 for the ball games recently. I think that this season should have a carry over for attendance in the next season, especially if we do well in post season. It's a shame we couldn't have pulled away and clinched the division earlier as I think it would have boosted attendance even more. Though this subject was discussed in a previous post at http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?S=149#s=149&f=1775&t=949538 I'd like to ask all of you a good question. Based on the trend that attendance figures lag from one season to another, responding positively to winning seasons in the following season with greater average attendance, and based on the fact that Jacobs Field and the Tribe should have their revenue enhanced by Post Season play, is there any reason at all for the Dolans to tell the fans that they can't afford to sign CC next year, or anyone else for that matter? Based on Potential Post Season revenue, and the projected attendance rebound and boost we should get next season, I don't think that they could legitimately tell us they can't afford CC, do you? Secondly, this is the last home stand, and if you can get out to these last few remaining games, please do. If we have three sellouts, it will push the average attendance just a teeny bit higher. I know most of you are already supporting the Tribe, but lets show up in the hopes that we can cheer on the Tribe and watch that Cenral Division Pennant being raised over Jacobs Field for the first time in Six Years! Your thoughts are appreciated.
"QB Controversies Are The Crutch Of Incompetent Coaches"
TREE
Last edited 9/21/2007 12:33 PM by Tree
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
- Aardvark
- Faithful Best Friend
- 7035 posts this site
|
Posted: 9/21/2007 4:19 PM
Re: Jacobs Field's Average Attendance Slowly Climbs
TREE:
Even just a few short weeks ago, Sept 9th to be exact, average attendance was
27,593.
3 weeks later, average attendance has increased to 28,039. This might not seem like much, but its a significant increase in terms of average attendance, especially considering that average attendance figures earlier in the year were even lower than the Sept 9th figure. It takes a lot to boost a number like that when you have to average in about 80 games, so the fan's late season response was significant in boosting that number.
AA:
Rationalizing statistics--and badly-- has been your bread and butter.
Here's a crazy thought: why not just cite the figures since 9/9? Here they are:
35,320
32,113
30,112
28,825
41,103
32,511
Since 9/9, the Indians have averaged 33,330. It's better than previous months, but truly underwhelming given the extraordinary circumstances.
On 9/6, the Indians were 21st in the league, averaging 27,592.
Today, the Indians are 21st in the league, averaging 28,038.
The biggest home stand they've had all year was against the Yankees in August: 125,264 for 3 dates. And one reason they drew so well, besides the Yankees being a perennial draw, was that truckloads of Yankees fans were there. I know. I was at two of the games and there were a lot more of them than Indians fans where I was sitting.
After that series, the Indians started to heat up, splitting with the Tigers at home and then taking 2 of 3 in their next three series ON THE ROAD. They came home 2 1/2 games up on the Tigers and playing the Twins, who were still within striking distance. Late August, the humidity was breaking, the Indians led the division, and they were to face off against a close division rival.
They swept the Twins and effectively knock them out of contention.
And an average of just over 25,000 fans showed up.
The Indians won 6 of 7 on that homestand and widened their lead over the Tigers from 2 1/2 to 5 1/2 games. And all they could average was 31,200.
They averaged more fans in July (31,528) when they were sputtering at 12-14.
You've made excuses why the attendance was down earlier... and yet when the Tribe kicked it into fourth gear in the last three weeks, the crowds were still soft.
Yes, attendance is up in September as the oppressive heat has lifted and a fair weather fans do what fair weather fans do best. The Tribe has drawn two games of 41,000, but also games of 28 and 30k. Your bold prediction what that if the Tribe stayed ahead of Detroit, the attendance would continue to get better.
Yea, I guess.
So much for rewarding the team for its great play with great attendance.
So much for attendance correllating to wins and losses. The Indians are now neck and neck for the best record in the majors, and they're 21st in attendence.
But don't blame it on the fans. Blame it on ethereal "factors."
TREE:
Based on the trend that attendance figures lag from one season to another, responding positively to winning seasons in the following season with greater average attendance, and based on the fact that Jacobs Field and the Tribe should have their revenue enhanced by Post Season play, is there any reason at all for the Dolans to tell the fans that they can't afford to sign CC next year, or anyone else for that matter?
AA:
Depends on what CC is asking and whether they think he can deliver over the life of that contract. Considering CC's rigorous off season training regimen at the Krispy Creme Institute, who knows?
Yes, the Tribe will make good money in the post season, but even if the Tribe goes the distance in the post season with 9-10 sellouts, they still not crack the top 10 in attendance. And a first round exit would only make a dent in the coffers. And let's face it, nobody can count their chickens on next year until the returns come in on season ticket sales.
I certainly hope that Dolan is willing to spend to keep a solid nucleus of players.
But when there always seems to be one crazy owner out there who is willing to throw insane money at a player, nothing's guaranteed.
Unfortunately the fans have provided an entire season as Dolan's excuse to go cheap.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2007 4:28 PM
Re: Jacobs Field's Average Attendance Slowly Climbs
Man, this "Dolan is cheap" argument is so old! He's spent to rebuild the farm system. He has spent to re-sign VMart long-term. He has spent to re-sign Grady long-term. He has spent to re-sign Westbrook and Lee long-term. He has spent to re-sign Hafner long-term. See a pattern here, people?  If they get CC done in the future, some of you will STILL say Dolan is cheap. Dolan's not perfect, but give him credit for spending now that the team is in the championship window.
Our attendance has been disgraceful. Period. And the "economy is weak" argument is old, too. Yes, some businesses have moved out of Cleveland. But other cities struggle with this, and corporations as a whole are cutting back on perks such as season tickets and loges throughout the country. Bottom line is more fans should be in the seats, people. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2007 8:56 PM
Re: Jacobs Field's Average Attendance Slowly Climbs
Aardvark wrote:
Here's a crazy thought: why not just cite the figures since 9/9? Here they are:
35,320
32,113
30,112
28,825
41,103
32,511
Since 9/9, the Indians have averaged 33,330. It's better than previous months, but truly underwhelming given the extraordinary circumstances.
On 9/6, the Indians were 21st in the league, averaging 27,592.
Today, the Indians are 21st in the league, averaging 28,038.
The biggest home stand they've had all year was against the Yankees in August: 125,264 for 3 dates. And one reason they drew so well, besides the Yankees being a perennial draw, was that truckloads of Yankees fans were there. I know. I was at two of the games and there were a lot more of them than Indians fans where I was sitting.
After that series, the Indians started to heat up, splitting with the Tigers at home and then taking 2 of 3 in their next three series ON THE ROAD. They came home 2 1/2 games up on the Tigers and playing the Twins, who were still within striking distance. Late August, the humidity was breaking, the Indians led the division, and they were to face off against a close division rival.
They swept the Twins and effectively knock them out of contention.
And an average of just over 25,000 fans showed up.
The Indians won 6 of 7 on that homestand and widened their lead over the Tigers from 2 1/2 to 5 1/2 games. And all they could average was 31,200.
They averaged more fans in July (31,528) when they were sputtering at 12-14.
You've made excuses why the attendance was down earlier... and yet when the Tribe kicked it into fourth gear in the last three weeks, the crowds were still soft.
Yes, attendance is up in September as the oppressive heat has lifted and a fair weather fans do what fair weather fans do best. The Tribe has drawn two games of 41,000, but also games of 28 and 30k. Your bold prediction what that if the Tribe stayed ahead of Detroit, the attendance would continue to get better.
Yea, I guess.
So much for rewarding the team for its great play with great attendance.
So much for attendance correllating to wins and losses. The Indians are now neck and neck for the best record in the majors, and they're 21st in attendence.
But don't blame it on the fans. Blame it on ethereal "factors."
Detroit's attendance in September 2006: 557,720 for 17 home dates- an average of 32,807. This for a team that was having its first winning season in 13 years, and its first championship season in over two decades. Chicago's attendance in September 2005: 478,402 for 17 home dates- an average of 28,141. This for arguably the best White Sox team since the second decade of the 20th century, and one that was in first place in the Central virtually wire-to-wire. Cleveland's attendance in September 2007: 278,743 for 8 home dates- an average of 34,843. Those still complaining about attendance no longer have a leg to stand on. It's that simple. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2007 10:05 AM
Re: Jacobs Field's Average Attendance Slowly Climbs
>Bottom line is more fans should be in the seats, people.
Bottom line is more fans ARE in the seats, people.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
- Aardvark
- Faithful Best Friend
- 7035 posts this site
|
Posted: 9/24/2007 3:40 PM
Re: Jacobs Field's Average Attendance Slowly Climbs
HERM:
Detroit's attendance in September 2006: 557,720 for 17 home dates- an average of 32,807. This for a team that was having its first winning season in 13 years, and its first championship season in over two decades.
AA:
And Detroit was 13th in attendance that year (32,048), filling their park to 79.9% of capacity.
HERM:
Chicago's attendance in September 2005: 478,402 for 17 home dates- an average of 28,141. This for arguably the best White Sox team since the second decade of the 20th century, and one that was in first place in the Central virtually wire-to-wire.
AA:
And the White Sox were 17th in attendance that year (28,723), filling their park
to 71.2% of capacity.
HERM:
Cleveland's attendance in September 2007: 278,743 for 8 home dates- an average of 34,843.
AA:
And their recent crowds have catapulted them (drum roll, please)... into 20th place! For the season, they're at 28,448, filling 65.6% of capacity (43,365).
HERM:
Those still complaining about attendance no longer have a leg to stand on. It's that simple.
AA:
So comparing the Indians to OTHER contending clubs who were ALSO but NOT QUITE AS MEDIOCRE in attendance...
... somehow justifies their own crowds? What kind of logic is it that tells us we're not really so bad as long as we can keep company with bad examples? It's not the logic of a rising tide raises all boats. No, they're all underwhelming.
Meanwhile there's Detroit, whose season certainly didn't turn out like they hoped. They're currently 9th in the league with an average crowd of 9,000+ more.
Oh yea, you and a leg to stand on go way back.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2007 4:33 PM
Re: Jacobs Field's Average Attendance Slowly Climbs
Aardvark wrote: HERM:
And Detroit was 13th in attendance that year (32,048), filling their park to 79.9% of capacity.
Oh, now you want to talk about overall attendance, and not just in September? Yes, attendance at the Jake was below average for most of the season. I've justified the attendance in the 'Cooler and on other boards, as a matter of fact. But I was under the impression that we were talking about September attendance, which is actually high compared to that of the previous two AL pennant winners.
HERM:
Chicago's attendance in September 2005: 478,402 for 17 home dates- an average of 28,141. This for arguably the best White Sox team since the second decade of the 20th century, and one that was in first place in the Central virtually wire-to-wire.
AA:
And the White Sox were 17th in attendance that year (28,723), filling their park
to 71.2% of capacity.
See above.
AA:
And their recent crowds have catapulted them (drum roll, please)... into 20th place! For the season, they're at 28,448, filling 65.6% of capacity (43,365).
See above.
So comparing the Indians to OTHER contending clubs who were ALSO but NOT QUITE AS MEDIOCRE in attendance...
Here is the statement that led off your first post in this thread:
"Since 9/9, the Indians have averaged 33,330. It's better than previous months, but truly underwhelming given the extraordinary circumstances."
This statement, which, correct me if I'm wrong, formed the foundation of your last post, simply doesn't hold water. Cleveland's September attendance is better than that of the previous two American League Champions. That's the basis for a comparison. Compared to other clubs in similar circumstances, Cleveland's recent attendance is excellent.
... somehow justifies their own crowds? What kind of logic is it that tells us we're not really so bad as long as we can keep company with bad examples? It's not the logic of a rising tide raises all boats. No, they're all underwhelming.
Better logic than to call Cleveland's September attendance "truly underwhelming" in a total vaccum, with no points of comparison. I know you like to play the contrarian here, and whatever floats your boat and all, but if you're going to complain about the crowds at the Jake this month, you really need to marshal some facts to back your complaints. April-August attendance figures won't do it, since- again, correct me if I'm wrong- the issue is September attendance.
Meanwhile there's Detroit, whose season certainly didn't turn out like they hoped. They're currently 9th in the league with an average crowd of 9,000+ more.
Detroit is coming off an American League Championship. The Indians are coming off of a 78-win, below-500 season and a fourth place finish.
Oh yea, you and a leg to stand on go way back.
Okay.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2007 9:01 PM
Re: Jacobs Field's Average Attendance Slowly Climbs
Nice post, Herm.
To try and get away from the Indians fans don't support the team enough discussion, does anyone have any clue how much the team looks to make from a series to series basis? I have been looking online and have not been able to find it anywhere and I would like to see how much more money Dolan will have so I can determine how pissed off I'll be if CC walks.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2007 9:36 AM
Re: Jacobs Field's Average Attendance Slowly Climbs
Herm, thanks for your input. In the other attendance thread, it was shown that attendance rebounds the following year for a winning team. This was pretty much proven by the attendance figures. Baseball attendance because it is such a long season tends to lag and rise and fall with the fortunes of the teams. Could we use more folks at the stadium? Sure, but know this. This year ranks as the 11th best attendance ever for the Tribe in it's 100 year existence, and that's despite losing several home games to the weather. Attendance next year will be even better, as it will follow the trend of better attendance after winning seasons and post season appearances. What a lot of fans don't understand is that attendance has a direct correlation to Wins and Losses and that attendance lags behind the team's winning and losing ways. The other things fans don't understand, is the the Indians set the major league attendance record for consecutive sellouts and that this streak ended in 2001. Since then the team has been a sub .500 or .500 team in 4 of the last 6 seasons. Like Detroit who is enjoying good attendance after a sucessful 2006 season, we too should enjoy good attendance next season in 2008. If you follow attendance trends, there is a rebound the following season in attendance for a winning team even if your team is losing the following season. We should enjoy a similar attendance rebound in the 2008 season, and attendance has climbed late this season. Detroit's attendance most likely will drop next year, and ours should rise following that trend. I just don't get what all the hollering is about. If you take a look at the original attendance thread, I fleshed all this out with the attendance figures and W-L records. http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?S=149#s=149&f=1775&t=949538
"QB Controversies Are The Crutch Of Incompetent Coaches"
TREE
Last edited 9/25/2007 9:40 AM by Tree
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
- Aardvark
- Faithful Best Friend
- 7035 posts this site
|
Posted: 9/25/2007 9:50 AM
Re: Jacobs Field's Average Attendance Slowly Climbs
AA:
And Detroit was 13th in attendance that year (32,048), filling their park to 79.9% of capacity.
HERM:
Oh, now you want to talk about overall attendance, and not just in September? Yes, attendance at the Jake was below average for most of the season. I've justified the attendance in the 'Cooler and on other boards, as a matter of fact. But I was under the impression that we were talking about September attendance, which is actually high compared to that of the previous two AL pennant winners.
AA:
This discussion has gone back to early September in a different thread prompted by a Frank Derry column.
The Indians September attendance is higher than Detroit's and Chicago's in the years mentioned, but as said, if you stink, comparing yourself to others who stink even more... doesn't make you stink any less.
AA:
"Since 9/9, the Indians have averaged 33,330. It's better than previous months, but truly underwhelming given the extraordinary circumstances."
HERM:
This statement, which, correct me if I'm wrong, formed the foundation of your last post, simply doesn't hold water. Cleveland's September attendance is better than that of the previous two American League Champions. That's the basis for a comparison. Compared to other clubs in similar circumstances, Cleveland's recent attendance is excellent.
AA:
Yea, compared to those two clubs. Let's look at other pennant winners:
2004- Red Sox average 35+k in September and all year (11th). They'd average more, but that's all Fenway holds.
2003- Yankees average 38+k in September and 42+k (1st) for the year.
2002- Anaheim averages 35+k in September and 28+k (16th) for the year.
2001- Yankees average 37+k in September and 40+k (3rd) for the year.
How about in the National League?
2006- St. Louis averages 42+k in September and 42+k (4th) for the year.
2005- Houston averages 36+k in September and 34+k (10th) for the year.
2004- St. Louis averages 36+k in September and 37+k (8th) for the year.
2003- Florida averages 23+k in September and 16+k (28th) for the year.
2002- San Francisco averages 42+k in September and 40+k (3rd) for the year.
2001- Arizona averages 36+k in September and 33+k (14th) for the year.
When you use a larger sample size, the Indians September turnouts don't look so impressive. When you compare season attendance, only the Marlins averaged worse.
The Indians have been on the top or close to it all year. They put on a kick at the last quarter mile that would have made Jim Ryun envious. Mind you, this is a club that made sellouts seven years ago routine. Somehow it's too much to expect those anymore. Whatever. They have been a contender 2 of the past 3 years, so if you buy into the residual winning effect, they still should have been drawing better.
But do you think that given the end of the year run that the fans would respond with something more than a 15% increase over July when the club was schlumping along with a losing record for the month?
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2007 10:01 AM
Re: Jacobs Field's Average Attendance Slowly Climbs
AA: With respect to my prediction that attendance would get better so long as the Indians continued to win and outpace Detroit, it has. They even moved up one slot to 9th. It was a late break, but then, you read the other thread and you know that attendance lags behind a team's record, so much so, that it even carries over into the following season. Also take into account that this is one of the latest dates that the Indians have been able to clinch the post season. The Indians clinched late, and the fans responded late, but they did respond boosting attendance in the last part of the season. There is no denying that. And here is what I actually said in regards to a prediction
Posted on 9/6/07 I am afraid the "blame the fans" argument doesn't hold water.
Don't worry, I guarantee that the Indians attendance THIS YEAR will surpass attendance in 2005 when they finished 2nd in the division. Attendance per game is already up over the 2005 season. The Indians at present are averaging 27,593 a game, despite inclement weather early in the season, despite having to play some of our home games outside of Jacob's field, and despite having to compete with the Eastern Conference Champion Cavs, and Browns. Attendance is up, and is climbing, despite complaints.
As you can see, I posted that on Sept. 6th and average attendance for the entire season was 27,593 by Sept. 23rd, average attendance for the entire season climbed to 28,449 even with losing 4 home games on the schedule. The real story is that over that time frame average attendance for Sept. jumped to 33,330. AT the time I made the prediction, 2007 total attendance figures were below the 2005 total attendance figures. Attendance in 2005 was 2,013,763. I predicted that we'd surpass that mark, and we did. Attendance for the season is 2,275,912. Despite losing 4 games on the home schedule which would give us an additional 100,000-180,000 in attendance we still surpassed the 2005 attendance figure by a quarter million fans. The 4 games we lost resulting in a loss of attendance anywhere between 100K, and 180K probably would have put us around 2.5 or possibly better which would have put us near the top half of the league in attendance. Attendance this season
So as you can see, attendance surpassed the 2005 season mark as I predicted it would despite us losing 4 games of home attendance.
Attendance will also be good next year following normal trends, and most likely will surpass this year's attendance so long as the Indians keep winning. We should surpass Chicago in attendance next year, as probably Detroit as well, and had we not lost those 4 games, we'd probably be at least 8th out of 14 in attendance in the American league this year. Again, attendance is climbing as the Indians fortunes rise. This trend will carry over into next season, mark my words.
Last Thoughts.
Cleveland only played 75 home games this year, while other teams had as many as 81 games to boost their attendance. So lets not forget that and lets not forget to factor in some of the other issues, like coming off of a losing season 78-84 finishing 4th in our division as factors that affect attendance.
The Indians have not really been a consistent contender by the way. Since the sell out streak ended in 2001, 4 out of their last 6 season have been .500 or worse. When they start winning consistently in back to back seasons you will see attendance figures that more closely resemble the attendance we saw from 1995 - 2001.
Just remember that the 2006 season we ended up 4th in the division, and so attendance lagged to the negative at first until the Tribe picked it up.......
To quote Barry: The Indians averaged 24,837 per home date prior to the All-Star break and 33,288 after the break.
That average attendance over the last half of the season would put us at around 4th in the American League in attendance if the trend continued. Next Year attendance will rebound to the positive if past attendance trends follow suit. I am thinking next year's attendance hovers around 35K to 40K.
"QB Controversies Are The Crutch Of Incompetent Coaches"
TREE
Last edited 9/25/2007 10:44 AM by Tree
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
- Aardvark
- Faithful Best Friend
- 7035 posts this site
|
Posted: 9/25/2007 12:51 PM
Re: Jacobs Field's Average Attendance Slowly Climbs
TREE:
With respect to my prediction that attendance would get better so long as the Indians continued to win and outpace Detroit, it has.
AA:
As already pointed out, that's hardly a bolder prediction than saying the sun will rise out of the east tomorrow. Of course the attendance would be better. But given the circumstances, the increase was as soft as the overall season attendence.
TREE:
They even moved up one slot to 9th.
AA:
9th sounds a lot more palatable when you're only including the AL. The Tribe is 20th overall.
TREE:
It was a late break, but then, you read the other thread and you know that attendance lags behind a team's record, so much so, that it even carries over into the following season.
AA:
And as already pointed out before...
2005- Indians finish 93-69 and contend all year only to falter the last week of the season. They draw just over 2 mill, good enough for 12th out of 14 AL teams.
So by your theory, attendance should have responded the next year.
2006- Indians draw over 15k FEWER FANS.
TREE:
Also take into account that this is one of the latest dates that the Indians have been able to clinch the post season. The Indians clinched late, and the fans responded late, but they did respond boosting attendance in the last part of the season. There is no denying that.
AA:
First it would stand to reason that fans would respond to a club that is contending and getting down to that magic number. They'd like to be around for the big clincher. After that, the drama has worn off a bit and the club looks to rest the vets for the playoffs and give more work to the September callups.
But by your logic, fans should respond more to the team AFTER they've clinched. Ooookay.
TREE:
And here is what I actually said in regards to a prediction...
AA:
Here's what else you wrote in your 9/5 @ 9:49am post, and my response the next day:
TREE:
Lucky for Tribe fans the Indians hitters have finally started to pull their heads outta their collective arses, and Detroit really doesn't want this division crown. Because of better play, and the fact that the Indians have a realistic chance to not be "yet another disappointment," I suspect that between now and the end of the season, that attendence will be significantly higher.
And also this:
They will however shell out the cash to watch a team pursue and win a division title.
I suspect that Jacob's field will pretty much be filled up between now and the end of the season, as long as this club keeps winning. I imagine also, that all post season games will be sold out at Jacob's field despite the enormous hike in ticket prices.
AA:
When the Tribe was winning at a .600+ clip, they couldn't fill half the stadium.
When the Tribe was playing .500 ball for 2.5 months, they drew better. July saw them go 12-14, but they averaged nearly 30,000 a game.
I don't know what "significantly higher" means, but since only 10 of the final 23 games are at the Jake, they should do even better. But that's a far, far cry from averaging sellouts.
So was the attendance in September SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER? Was Jacobs Field pretty much filled up between now and the end of the season?
Since you wrote that, the Indians kept winning all right-- 11 of 16 (a .687 winning percentage), and drew an average 35,202 (81%) at home.
They went into a HUGE three game series with the Tigers, down 4 1/2 games, and the fans responded by not even clearing 29,000 for the opener. They had a terrific turnout for the next game (41+k), then when the Tribe had already won the first two and effectively eliminated Detroit, an underwhelming 32k show up to see the Indians star pitcher close out the series. That night they filled 75% of the stadium.
Hopefully CC won't take that slight personally.
But hey, to the optimist, one of four seats being empty still means the stadium is... pretty much filled up.
Just consider that nearly half of major league teams AVERAGE better than 80% of capacity.
TREE:
Next Year attendance will rebound to the positive if past attendance trends follow suit. I am thinking next year's attendance hovers around 35K to 40K.
AA:
And is that taking into account whether CC's with the club? We know how fans responded when Manny and Thome walked.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2007 2:30 PM
Re: Jacobs Field's Average Attendance Slowly Climbs
As I said AA, you have to win in order to get a carry over effect.
No one is going to pay to see a losing ball club. There is a historical trend for attendance improving after a post season appearance, just as there is a historical trend for attendance dropping the following year after a poor season. That's pretty plain to see, and we should see that boost next year. But if the Indians stink up the joint early the rug will be pulled out.
Not sure what your point really is other than to be contrarian.
Again, the Indians finished 4th in the division last year, and under .500. That has a negative effect on ticket sales the following year especially earlier in the season. The Indians overcame that downward pressure on ticket sales by winning, and its exemplified by first half ticket sales vs. 2nd half.
The Indians averaged 24,837 per home date prior to the All-Star break and 33,288 after the break
If the Indians continue to win this post season and start off well next season, the trend will continue and average attendance will increase per historical trends. It's not that hard to understand.
Yes, attendance was significantly higher as an average in Sept than it was earlier in the year. When the fans sense that there is something to be played for, they show up. If the Indians start a streak like they did in 95-01, I wouldn't be suprised if we didn't enjoy excellent attendance again. But please remember attendance always lags behind what the club is actually doing.
Again, I'd say averaging nearly 10,000 fans more a game over the 2nd part of the season is significant, and pretty close to filling the stadium up. Never said it was going to be sellouts. We finished the season I believe with 2 or 3 sellouts to cap it off, and we still posted the 11th best attendance record in Indians History despite losing anywhere from 100,000 to 160,000 in attendance due to several games having to be moved.
Can we do better? Of course we can, but to deny that winning has anything to do with attendance is foolish. I don't think you are asking fans to support a losing team for 80 some games. No fan would do that. Baseball is a long long season, and you have to be cheering for something to get fans to consistently come out to the ball park night in and night out, and winning and leading your division is the only way to do that. Its a small market team, and therefore, the only thing that really drives ticket sales is winning. We don't have a couple million people living in Cleveland. We aren't the Yankees.
"QB Controversies Are The Crutch Of Incompetent Coaches"
TREE
Last edited 9/25/2007 2:42 PM by Tree
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
- Aardvark
- Faithful Best Friend
- 7035 posts this site
|
Posted: 9/27/2007 11:43 AM
Re: Jacobs Field's Average Attendance Slowly Climbs
TREE: As I said AA, you have to win in order to get a carry over effect. AA: As I said, the 2005 Indians won 93 games and had a slight drop in attendance the next year. TREE: No one is going to pay to see a losing ball club. AA: Surely winning teams will draw better than losing teams. But there are teams that can maintain good attendance despite up and down cycles, and other markets whose fans won't turn out in large numbers even with winning teams. Some markets (e.g. St. Louis, ) are "baseball towns" while others (e.g. Tampa Bay, Florida and the departed Montreal) are decidedly not. In the middle are those markets that have their share-- more or less) of fair weather fans. Cleveland is not a St. Louis, nor is it a Tampa Bay or Arizona. But it's likely not as supportive as some want to make it out. And they'll go a country mile to invent rationalizations for those shortcomings. TREE: There is a historical trend for attendance improving after a post season appearance, just as there is a historical trend for attendance dropping the following year after a poor season. That's pretty plain to see, and we should see that boost next year. But if the Indians stink up the joint early the rug will be pulled out. AA: LOL! First the "historical trend" required a winning season to foster better attendance last year. Then when the 2005-6 Indians were brought up, that now has been revised to include a post season appearance. Okay, the 2001 Indians finished first in their division and were automatically in the playoffs. They drew 3,175,000 fans. The next year saw them draw over a half million fewer fans. TREE: Not sure what your point really is other than to be contrarian. AA: The point doesn't have to do with your "historical trends." It goes back to the other thread prompted by the Frank Derry column. The Indians were winning, and yet the fans weren't turning out for them. Every matter of excuse was produced because-- God forbid-- it couldn't be the fans fault. And those excuses started to contradict one another. For example, IF the club is winning, post seasons, et al, then that blows those other excuses out of the water like Cleveland is a poor city, people don't have money, fans perceive Dolan as a cheapskate. You can try one set of excuses or the other, but you can't have both. TREE: If the Indians continue to win this post season and start off well next season, the trend will continue and average attendance will increase per historical trends. It's not that hard to understand. AA: It is when you keep tacking on provisos. Okay, they have to have a winning season AND make the post season AND start off well the next year.... in order to have good attendance. Wow. TREE: The Indians averaged 24,837 per home date prior to the All-Star break and 33,288 after the breakAA: Yep, a big increase-- 34% to be exact. But did you realize that even if the Indians averaged 33,288 ALL SEASON... ... they still wouldn't be in the top half of league attendance? TREE: Yes, attendance was significantly higher as an average in Sept than it was earlier in the year. When the fans sense that there is something to be played for, they show up. AA: Let me repeat two passages: After that series [the Yankees sweep at the Jake] , the Indians started to heat up, splitting with the Tigers at home and then taking 2 of 3 in their next three series ON THE ROAD. They came home 2 1/2 games up on the Tigers and playing the Twins, who were still within striking distance. Late August, the humidity was breaking, the Indians led the division, and they were to face off against a close division rival.
They swept the Twins and effectively knock them out of contention.
And an average of just over 25,000 fans showed up.
The Indians won 6 of 7 on that homestand and widened their lead over the Tigers from 2 1/2 to 5 1/2 games. And all they could average was 31,200.
They averaged more fans in July (31,528) when they were sputtering at 12-14.
And this... They went into a HUGE three game series [9/17] with the Tigers, down 4 1/2 games, and the fans responded by not even clearing 29,000 for the opener. They had a terrific turnout for the next game (41+k), then when the Tribe had already won the first two and effectively eliminated Detroit, an underwhelming 32k show up to see the Indians star pitcher close out the series. That night they filled 75% of the stadium.
Hopefully CC won't take that slight personally.
I guess the fans need to work on their sense of when there is something to be played for, and when to show up. TREE: Again, I'd say averaging nearly 10,000 fans more a game over the 2nd part of the season is significant, and pretty close to filling the stadium up. AA: I guess in the world of pretend, filling three quarters of the seats (something half the teams already do) can be viewed as pretty close to filling the stadium up. TREE: Never said it was going to be sellouts. AA: Nobody claimed you said it, Mister Strawman. TREE: We finished the season I believe with 2 or 3 sellouts to cap it off, AA: Nope, they were not sellouts. Both were more than 3k short. TREE: and we still posted the 11th best attendance record in Indians History despite losing anywhere from 100,000 to 160,000 in attendance due to several games having to be moved. AA: So let me get this straight. The Indians were forced to play three of their home games in Milwaukee. Mind you, that was in April when you said the attendance was down because of the bad weather. And that was the month that Cleveland averaged 15-16k in their OTHER home games that month. And yet you somehow think they were going to draw 33,000 for those games? Kinda hard to reach 160k in attendance unless they would added 9,000 more seats to the stadium. TREE: Can we do better? Of course we can, but to deny that winning has anything to do with attendance is foolish. AA: No one's making that claim, Mister Strawman. The Indians attendance has been underwhelming considering the club has been in contention all season. TREE: I don't think you are asking fans to support a losing team for 80 some games. No fan would do that. AA: Unless they're wearing a Cubs jersey. TREE: Baseball is a long long season, and you have to be cheering for something to get fans to consistently come out to the ball park night in and night out, and winning and leading your division is the only way to do that. AA: And since April 24th, the Tribe has been in first place 85% of the season, and never more than 2 games out the rest of the time. You set up criteria that the club has already satisfied. TREE: Its a small market team, and therefore, the only thing that really drives ticket sales is winning. We don't have a couple million people living in Cleveland. We aren't the Yankees. AA: Already covered in the Derry thread on 9/6: GOOZER:
There is also a major lack of money and, population in general, compared to other MLB markets.
AA:
Then why is it the Browns and Cavs have exceptional attendence? How is it they're not affected, but the Tribe is?
CITY---- METRO HOUSEHOLDS--- # ML TEAMS--- 2007 Attendence (game avg.)... team winning %
Minneapolis--1,658,000---3--- 28,858 (18th)---.493
Miami----------1,538,000---3--- 16,853 (29th)--- .429
Cleveland-- 1,537,000- 3-- 27,592 (21st)--.583
Denver--------1,431,000---4--- 28,594 (19th)----.518
St. Louis------1,229,000---3--- 43,764 (4th)-----.500
Pittsburgh----1,163,000---3--- 22,381 (27th)---.439
Baltimore-----1,097,000---2--- 26,923 (23rd)---.435
San Diego----1,030,000---2--- 34,656 (13th)---.547
Kansas City----913,000---2--- 20,157 (28th)---.446
Cincinnati-------887,000---2--- 26,105 (24th)---.450
Milwaukee------883,000---2--- 35,102 (12th)---.511
Cities with far fewer people, as many supposedly competing franchises and far crappier teams aren't faring much worse in attendence, and some are better.
This year, the Tribe is playing far better than the fan support it has received. Not much getting around it.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2007 12:23 PM
Re: Jacobs Field's Average Attendance Slowly Climbs
Aardvark wrote: AA:
The Indians September attendance is higher than Detroit's and Chicago's in the years mentioned, but as said, if you stink, comparing yourself to others who stink even more... doesn't make you stink any less.
No, it's all comparative. The team's September attendance is significantly better than that of the previous two American League champions, and it's significantly better than it was at the beginning of the season. The team won; the fans responded. I don't see the problem here.
Yea, compared to those two clubs. Let's look at other pennant winners:
2004- Red Sox average 35+k in September and all year (11th). They'd average more, but that's all Fenway holds.
Went to the ALCS in 2003. Tribe won 78 games last year and was out of it by July.
2003- Yankees average 38+k in September and 42+k (1st) for the year.
Coming off eight consecutive playoff appearances. Tribe won 78 games last year and was out of it by July.
2002- Anaheim averages 35+k in September and 28+k (16th) for the year.
Not a significant difference between the two clubs, which is fitting, because their previous seasons were similar (Anaheim won 75 games in 2001)
2001- Yankees average 37+k in September and 40+k (3rd) for the year.
Coming off three consecutive World Championships. Tribe won 78 games last year and was out of it by July.
How about in the National League?
2006- St. Louis averages 42+k in September and 42+k (4th) for the year.
Better baseball town than Cleveland, flat-out.
2005- Houston averages 36+k in September and 34+k (10th) for the year.
Went to the NLCS in 2004. Tribe won 78 games and... you get the point.
2004- St. Louis averages 36+k in September and 37+k (8th) for the year.
See Cardinals, 2006
2003- Florida averages 23+k in September and 16+k (28th) for the year.
Florida has a baseball team?
2002- San Francisco averages 42+k in September and 40+k (3rd) for the year.
Three-year old ballpark, 90 wins the previous two seasons.
2001- Arizona averages 36+k in September and 33+k (14th) for the year.
When you use a larger sample size, the Indians September turnouts don't look so impressive. When you compare season attendance, only the Marlins averaged worse.
When you look at it in a vacuum, it doesn't look impressive. But most of the teams that outdrew the Indians were experiencing attendance bumps off an outstanding previous season or seasons, whereas the Indians, as we know, were coming off a 78-win season that, furthermore, came on the heels of very high expectations. I'm assuming you're going to call this an "excuse", and you're free to do so. I don't care. Any rational person is going to understand that a team coming off a 90 or 95-win season and the playoffs is probably going to outdraw a team coming off a 78-win season, all other things being equal. Also, I have no need to make excuses, since I thought the low attendance was fully justified and have said so.
The Indians have been on the top or close to it all year. They put on a kick at the last quarter mile that would have made Jim Ryun envious. Mind you, this is a club that made sellouts seven years ago routine. Somehow it's too much to expect those anymore. Whatever. They have been a contender 2 of the past 3 years, so if you buy into the residual winning effect, they still should have been drawing better.
Any residual effect 2005 might have had was killed in the final week. When people remember 2005, they remember 93 wins, they remember the final week.
But do you think that given the end of the year run that the fans would respond with something more than a 15% increase over July when the club was schlumping along with a losing record for the month?
Attendance went up. Bottom line. Do you have a figure you would have been satisfied with? |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2007 2:50 PM
Re: Jacobs Field's Average Attendance Slowly Climbs
Again, you are just being contrarian here.
The Indians averaged 24,837 per home date prior to the All-Star break and 33,288 after the break
AA:
Yep, a big increase-- 34% to be exact.
But did you realize that even if the Indians averaged 33,288 ALL SEASON...
... they still wouldn't be in the top half of league attendance?
Tree:
That's an absolute falsehood, and again, you are just blowing crap out your ass, throwing it on the wall and seeing if it will stick. Standard MO. Since you admittedly said the increase was 34%, what's the beef? Did I not say attendance figures were climbing? Yet somehow, you want to divert this into a bunch of side issues. Regarding the 2002 season vs. 2001, we tanked it, and losing supresses attendance in a small market. Bottom line.
33.3K...? That figure would bring season attendance to around 2.7 Million over a full schedule. This would place them around anywhere between 12th to as low as 14th out of 30 teams give or take a few in attendance over the season, and we are talking about next years attendance as well, and the trends show that an increase in average attendance should be expected. I'd say that the odds are more in favor of an attendance increase in 2008 than not based on past results. But you aren't listening so I am unsure as to why I am talking here.
Umm, that is the top half of the league in attendance. 2.7 would put the Indians about 4th in the American League and about anywhere between 12th to 14th overall. No matter which way you slice it, it's still the top half of the league attendance wise.
By percent of capacity, Cleveland ranks 17th in the league this year, so if you are telling me that averaging 33.3K out over a full season, wouldn't put them in the top half of the league in attendance, you got a credibility issue.
The rest of your post is just bad logic piled on bad logic, since the original topic was that attendance figures were slowly rising at Jacob's Field. Since I have unequivocally proven that, playing these kind of games are unproductive.
Point is, build it and we'll come, win, and you're in. We are a small market and it's winning that drives attendance more than any other factor. Attendance climbed as Tribe fans began to realize that we were actually going to be playing for something in October. You, yourself admitted this, even quoting the increase in attendance as 34%. If the Tribe continues it's winning ways again next season especially early on, it will again increase. We steadily push on towards another division title, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see average attendance hit the 35K to 40K mark next year.
"QB Controversies Are The Crutch Of Incompetent Coaches"
TREE
Last edited 9/27/2007 3:23 PM by Tree
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
- Aardvark
- Faithful Best Friend
- 7035 posts this site
|
Posted: 9/27/2007 5:33 PM
Re: Jacobs Field's Average Attendance Slowly Climbs
The Indians averaged 24,837 per home date prior to the All-Star break and 33,288 after the break
AA:
Yep, a big increase-- 34% to be exact.
But did you realize that even if the Indians averaged 33,288 ALL SEASON...
... they still wouldn't be in the top half of league attendance?
Tree:
That's an absolute falsehood, and again, you are just blowing crap out your ass, throwing it on the wall and seeing if it will stick. Standard MO.
AA:
Then show me what's false in the methodology.
Here are the top 15 teams in the league in terms of average attendance...
Yankees 52,739
Dodgers 47,728
Mets 47,280
Cardinals 43,853
Angels 41,551
Cubs 40,153
Giants 39,792
Phillies 38,094
Tigers 37,618
Astros 37,050
Red Sox 36,677
Brewers 35,230
Padres 34,445
Braves 33,891
Mariners 33,271
If the Indians averaged 33,288, they'd move into 15th place ahead of the Mariners.
TREE:
Since you admittedly said the increase was 34%, what's the beef?
AA:
If you average 20,000 fans in April, then average 25,000 fans in May, you can say "Whoopee, a 25% increase!"
In reality, you were averaging poorly in April, and only... less poorly in May.
The Tribe is tied for the best record in the league, and they're 20th in the league in attendance. All the yabuts don't erase that.
TREE:
Did I not say attendance figures were climbing?
AA:
Did I not say the rise was... underwhelming?
TREE:
Yet somehow, you want to divert this into a bunch of side issues.
AA:
Oh yea, like the 11th best attendance of all time. Yea, in the 1950's, a club's success was marked by hitting one million in attendance.
If there are side issues, they're the myriad of excuses being made as to why the attendance isn't that great.
TREE:
Regarding the 2002 season vs. 2001, we tanked it, and losing supresses attendance in a small market. Bottom line.
AA:
But you said winning would suppress attendance the next year. And when an example is offered to refute that, the best you can come up with is "we tanked it."
An excuse can't be invented that you haven't employed. There isn't a counter that can't be offered that you can't dismiss with... nothing at all.
TREE:
33.3K...? That figure would bring season attendance to around 2.7 Million over a full schedule. This would place them around anywhere between 12th to as low as 14th out of 30 teams give or take a few in attendance over the season
33,288 multiplied by 82 equals 2,729,616.
The Atlanta Braves are currently 14th in attendance with 2,745,203.
The Seattle Mariners are currently 15th with 2,561,929. Seattle has three home games remaining.
Yea, maybe the Indians would overtake the Mariners.
If they averaged 33,228 for the season.
Which they have... only in make believe.
TREE:
and we are talking about next years attendance as well, and the trends show that an increase in average attendance should be expected. I'd say that the odds are more in favor of an attendance increase in 2008 than not based on past results. But you aren't listening so I am unsure as to why I am talking here.
AA:
But you yourself said that wouldn't be the case if they get off to a bad start.
There is a historical trend for attendance improving after a post season appearance, just as there is a historical trend for attendance dropping the following year after a poor season. That's pretty plain to see, and we should see that boost next year. But if the Indians stink up the joint early the rug will be pulled out.
See? Even YOU don't listen to you!
Can't blame ya.
TREE:
The rest of your post is just bad logic piled on bad logic, since the original topic was that attendance figures were slowly rising at Jacob's Field.
AA:
Talk about diminished expectations!
You set out with "I suspect that between now and the end of the season, that attendence will be significantly higher."
Now it's "attendance figures were slowly rising." Like it's a cake in the oven.
"I suspect that Jacob's field will pretty much be filled up between now and the end of the season, as long as this club keeps winning."
The club kept winning, at a .687 clip. And golly gee, if their attendance wasn't slowly rising like you, uh, said.
You a funny man.
TREE:
Since I have unequivocally proven that, playing these kind of games are unproductive.
AA:
Yea, T-ball is never much fun... for the ball.
TREE:
Point is, build it and we'll come, win, and you're in. We are a small market and it's winning that drives attendance more than any other factor. Attendance climbed as Tribe fans began to realize that we were actually going to be playing for something in October.
AA:
And yet look at the Brewers. They led up to this year by losing 94, 94, 81 and 87 games. That kind of losing would have given their fans (in a smaller market than Cleveland) plenty of trepidation.
And yet the team contends this year, and their attendance is already up 377,000 more than last year, and will probably hit a half million when the season ends after their closing weekend series.
Meanwhile the Indians lose 27 FEWER games in the previous four years than the Brewers, have an EVEN BETTER YEAR, and draw only 277,000 more fans.
Oh yea, they were penalized by that 3 game series in Milwaukee where they would, by your estimation, have averaged 35,000, even though they averaged 20k the rest of the month. You must have done accounting for Arthur Anderson.
You'd think as many times as I've lapped you that I'd be breaking a sweat.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2007 8:44 AM
Re: Jacobs Field's Average Attendance Slowly Climbs
I pretty much get your argument. I say attendance is rising and fans are beginning to get behind the Tribe, you say not enough, Tribe fans suck and don't support the team. I think that about defines your argument. If you expected the Tribe to lead the league in attendance this year after coming off a sub .500 season, you are mistaken. I think given the results of last season the attendance is acceptable, and that there will be a positive carry over into next year. It's also pretty apparent that everyone else here has given up on trying to convince you of this. So too, have I.
Peace Out.
"QB Controversies Are The Crutch Of Incompetent Coaches"
TREE
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
- Aardvark
- Faithful Best Friend
- 7035 posts this site
|
Posted: 9/28/2007 9:02 AM
Re: Jacobs Field's Average Attendance Slowly Climbs
TREE:
I pretty much get your argument. I say attendance is rising and fans are beginning to get behind the Tribe, you say not enough,
AA:
Yes, I say underwhelming. Frankly, they should have been drawing 30k when they were drawing 20k, and they should have been routinely drawing 40k when they were drawing 33-35k (btw: 40k would be a far more accurate measure of pretty much filling up the stadium).
TREE:
... Tribe fans suck and don't support the team. I think that about defines your argument.
AA:
No, that would be your typically distorted characterization. My opinion has already been spelled out. The fans have not sufficiently supported the club this year, and if you want to make it a strict quid pro quo, the fans have responded to the club's fine year.... in a pretty underwhelming fashion. The team tied with the best record in the majors should be drawing better than 20th in the league.
Underwhelming has been the word used constantly. Support has not been great, nor has it sucked (like in Miami, even when the Marlins contend). It's underwhelming and a disappointment.
TREE:
If you expected the Tribe to lead the league in attendance this year after coming off a sub .500 season, you are mistaken.
AA:
I've never had any such expectation. I don't think it's too much to see the Indians in the top 10 or even the top half of the league. I've stated that before, so your characterization above is yet another one of your creations in straw.
As pointed out, other teams have had several years of losing leading up to this year when they broke through and contended. And their attendance rose considerably. Somehow their fans didn't need all these excuses.
TREE:
I think given the results of last season the attendance is acceptable, and that there will be a positive carry over into next year.
AA:
It's bad enough to settle for "acceptable." It's worse to create pretty low criteria that fall into what you deem acceptable.
TREE:
It's also pretty apparent that everyone else here has given up on trying to convince you of this. So too, have I.
AA:
Because you can't come to terms with the fact that the fans aren't above criticism. There always has to be excuses to absolve them.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2007 9:42 AM
Re: Jacobs Field's Average Attendance Slowly Climbs
AA:
The fans are not above criticism. I said so myself. I said, "Could we have done better?" Yes....
Are we selling the joint out? No......But the fans responded......even if you feel its underwhelming. That was the whole point, that the fans did respond...albeit late......but never-the-less, they responded.
Anyways, I am under the weather today, and at work. Maybe I pick this up later with you, maybe not. I do see your points, and I do see that you wish they would have responded to a greater degree than they did, but that really wasn't the issue. No one would expect them to match attendance figures that we saw during the consecutive sell out streak after a losing sub .500 season. However, expectations for attendance will be turned up a knotch next year, and I suspect the fans won't disappoint. The attendance next year should enjoy carry over from this year, the fans did respond, and all we are arguing about is whether or not their response meets your standards. They met mine considering, and I don't believe you'll convince me otherwise.
"QB Controversies Are The Crutch Of Incompetent Coaches"
TREE
Last edited 9/28/2007 9:48 AM by Tree
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
The TAP Room