PDA

View Full Version : Attendance by market size



Brutus
06-14-2012, 06:51 PM
There is often much discussion of attendance around baseball, especially with the Reds.

Thought it worth noting that the Reds are 4th in average attendance per game over a 3-year period (2009-2011) in relative proportion to their U.S. Census, Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA).

1. Milwaukee (2.35%)
2. St. Louis (1.43%)
3. Colorado (1.37%)
4. Cincinnati (1.16%)
5. Minnesota (1.10%)

There are a few big market teams that do well (Boston, San Francisco, Baltimore, Seattle and Philly), though most of the big-hitters are in the bottom half. To be fair, some of the bigger teams do often sell-out their games, so they're sometimes limited in how many they can draw relative to their size.

Here is the complete list...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Asjb5kvZz0PcdDVpcUdMT0JVQXp6X28wd0hjM1I3S Xc

RedsManRick
06-14-2012, 07:07 PM
There is often much discussion of attendance around baseball, especially with the Reds.

Thought it worth noting that the Reds are 4th in average attendance per game over a 3-year period (2009-2011) in relative proportion to their U.S. Census, Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA).

1. Milwaukee (2.35%)
2. St. Louis (1.43%)
3. Colorado (1.37%)
4. Cincinnati (1.16%)
5. Minnesota (1.10%)

There are a few big market teams that do well (Boston, San Francisco, Baltimore, Seattle and Philly), though most of the big-hitters are in the bottom half. To be fair, some of the bigger teams do often sell-out their games, so they're sometimes limited in how many they can draw relative to their size.

Here is the complete list...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Asjb5kvZz0PcdDVpcUdMT0JVQXp6X28wd0hjM1I3S Xc

I wonder how Milwaukee would rank if you included Madison. It's only about 45 minutes from downtown Madison to Miller Stadium, but it's in a different CBSA -- like Dayton, but 4 times bigger.

edit: I did the math, it would drop Milwaukee to about 1.7% -- still quite impressive.

Yachtzee
06-14-2012, 07:11 PM
Based on that list, I'd say the Florida teams and Oakland are definitely the low performers, underperforming relative to their market area.

corkedbat
06-14-2012, 07:16 PM
I wonder what those figures would have looked like back in the 70's during the BRM days?

Brutus
06-15-2012, 11:15 AM
I wonder what those figures would have looked like back in the 70's during the BRM days?

Hm, you've inspired me. I may have to do a separate look using mid-70's attendance and 1970 census figures. I'll consider that lol

Sea Ray
06-15-2012, 12:05 PM
There is often much discussion of attendance around baseball, especially with the Reds.

Thought it worth noting that the Reds are 4th in average attendance per game over a 3-year period (2009-2011) in relative proportion to their U.S. Census, Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA).

1. Milwaukee (2.35%)
2. St. Louis (1.43%)
3. Colorado (1.37%)
4. Cincinnati (1.16%)
5. Minnesota (1.10%)

There are a few big market teams that do well (Boston, San Francisco, Baltimore, Seattle and Philly), though most of the big-hitters are in the bottom half. To be fair, some of the bigger teams do often sell-out their games, so they're sometimes limited in how many they can draw relative to their size.

Here is the complete list...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Asjb5kvZz0PcdDVpcUdMT0JVQXp6X28wd0hjM1I3S Xc

I don't see what we learn from this. Did anything here surprise you?

I would say the numbers don't support SEA as a big market team. Their market is only slightly larger than Minnesota's and fraction of the big boys in Chicago, NY and LA

Rojo
06-15-2012, 03:57 PM
I think there's a problem here with two-team markets. Seven of the bottom eight (not counting Toronto), are from NYC, Chicago, LA or Bay Area. (The other is perennially sports blase Miami)

Large markets. But they have to share.

Brutus
06-15-2012, 05:51 PM
I think there's a problem here with two-team markets. Seven of the bottom eight (not counting Toronto), are from NYC, Chicago, LA or Bay Area. (The other is perennially sports blase Miami)

Large markets. But they have to share.

I don't think it has anything to do with sharing. Even if you split LA or New York in half, they're bigger than almost all other markets.

I think the bigger issue for these supersized markets is that they're often hubs with people coming from around the country and, especially in the case of New York, around the world. Often you'll probably find less of an attachment to baseball and the teams in general, so per capita, I imagine you won't get as much support. The sheer numbers obviously still support large attendance, but I think it makes sense the huge markets wouldn't be quite as popular.

Brutus
06-15-2012, 05:52 PM
I don't see what we learn from this. Did anything here surprise you?

I would say the numbers don't support SEA as a big market team. Their market is only slightly larger than Minnesota's and fraction of the big boys in Chicago, NY and LA

I don't know that we "learned" anything, but I think it's a reminder that teams like Cincinnati are tremendously smaller markets and have a lot fewer people to draw from, which shows their attendance figures are much stronger given the percentage of population.

Rojo
06-15-2012, 07:59 PM
I don't think it has anything to do with sharing. Even if you split LA or New York in half, they're bigger than almost all other markets.

My point is that it throws your chart off. You'd have to split the two-team markets in half and run the numbers again.

WMR
06-15-2012, 08:08 PM
I would be really interested to know how much of the Reds patronage originates from Kentucky. I would guess at least 2/3 of Kentuckians who consider themselves an MLB fan are fans of the Reds, with the remaining 1/3 largely Cards fans in western Kentucky and your assorted Yankee/sCrub/Have to be different fan.

Yachtzee
06-19-2012, 03:22 AM
My point is that it throws your chart off. You'd have to split the two-team markets in half and run the numbers again.

Or combine the attendance of the two teams and run that number against population.

Actually, you could probably analyze this type of data to determine which markets might actually be able to support a third team. For example, look at the attendance for the Yankees and Mets combined, compare it to potential attendance (capacity of the stadiums for both teams for all games), and then look at the comparison to market size. If both the Yankees and Mets are achieving attendance levels beyond what other teams are reaching and have a high number of sell outs, but still find themselves down on this list of attendance by market size, you have to wonder whether the problem is the percentage of the population interested in baseball, or whether the real problem is that there is potential greater demand for baseball in those markets that isn't being met because of a lack of available tickets for games. Could that demand be met by adding teams to the market? Should teams is ginormous market areas be allowed to have exclusive control over those markets even though they can't meet the demand of the ticket buying public?

Rojo
06-19-2012, 08:37 PM
Or combine the attendance of the two teams and run that number against population.

That'd work too.

Actually, about 10 years ago, I did something close to what you describe above.

I used, I believe the 1990 census #'s to rank Combined Statistical Areas of all US cities. MLB mirrors the top thirty cities pretty well. The only thing you'd have to do for a perfect match is move the Brewers (Milwaukee, just outside the top thirty) to Portland (just inside the top thirty).

But that wasn't my point. I took the median city, Cleveland, and made that a "unit" of market size.

NYC, IIRC, was over three "Clevelands". Baltimore-Washington was over two. LA and Chicago were well over two but not quite three. The Bay Area wasn't quite two.

My conclusion was that LA, Chicago and BA had the right amount of teams (although barely for the BA -- witness the A's) but that you MLB would be wise to move some struggling franchises to metro NYC and DC.

I thought this would also have the effect of undercutting a prime drive of player salaries -- the NYC-Bal-Boston axis.

People forget that the O's used to be big time Free agent buyers. The Nationals took care of that. A team in Conn would take care of the Sox and Yanks.

Unassisted
06-21-2012, 07:41 PM
I wonder how Milwaukee would rank if you included Madison. It's only about 45 minutes from downtown Madison to Miller Stadium, but it's in a different CBSA -- like Dayton, but 4 times bigger.

edit: I did the math, it would drop Milwaukee to about 1.7% -- still quite impressive.Madison's population center is probably west of downtown.

I used to live in Madison, close to the western edge of the city and it always took well over an hour to get to Miller Park. I didn't know many Madisonians who made that trip even once a year, although I knew plenty who made the trip north (and east to the old County Stadium) for Packers games.

Captain Hook
06-21-2012, 08:19 PM
The Reds compete with other attractions in Cincinnati, it just happens that none of them are other MLB teams.The teams in LA and NY shouldn't be given any extra consideration in this because they decided to put a ball park across town from an existing team.

Yachtzee
06-22-2012, 12:43 AM
That'd work too.

Actually, about 10 years ago, I did something close to what you describe above.

I used, I believe the 1990 census #'s to rank Combined Statistical Areas of all US cities. MLB mirrors the top thirty cities pretty well. The only thing you'd have to do for a perfect match is move the Brewers (Milwaukee, just outside the top thirty) to Portland (just inside the top thirty).

But that wasn't my point. I took the median city, Cleveland, and made that a "unit" of market size.

NYC, IIRC, was over three "Clevelands". Baltimore-Washington was over two. LA and Chicago were well over two but not quite three. The Bay Area wasn't quite two.

My conclusion was that LA, Chicago and BA had the right amount of teams (although barely for the BA -- witness the A's) but that you MLB would be wise to move some struggling franchises to metro NYC and DC.

I thought this would also have the effect of undercutting a prime drive of player salaries -- the NYC-Bal-Boston axis.

People forget that the O's used to be big time Free agent buyers. The Nationals took care of that. A team in Conn would take care of the Sox and Yanks.

Yep, there are plenty of places to put a team in the NY metro area. Connecticut could pull in fans in areas currently claimed by the Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox, or put a team in New Jersey that would pull in fans from areas claimed by the Mets, Yankees and Phillies. Or you could put a team in Brooklyn, which would likely bring with it a sentimentality baseball fans have for the old Brooklyn Dodgers and would probably localize the attraction to fans in the NYC metro area, meaning you only have to worry about two ownership groups crying about it rather than three.

I think that, with the concerns about climate change and dwindling fresh water reserves in the South and Southwest, I think we may see a reversal of population shifts as people and businesses who left the Northeast and Midwest due to bad weather move back in search of affordable land and access to fresh water. Eventually, I think the Diamondbacks and at least one of the Florida teams might eventually have to consider moving north.

buckeyenut
06-22-2012, 07:05 AM
The biggest advantage a Conneticut team would have is their proximity to Bristol. That is going to add a chunk of revenue beyond what any other location could ever hope for. I think it would be very smart to look at that market for a future team.

Chip R
06-22-2012, 10:05 AM
The biggest advantage a Conneticut team would have is their proximity to Bristol. That is going to add a chunk of revenue beyond what any other location could ever hope for. I think it would be very smart to look at that market for a future team.

The problem with that is the Bristol area is nowheresville. If you ever read any of the histories of ESPN, you will see the people who work there don't exactly have the best things to say about it socially.

It's a non-starter to put a team in that area or NYC anyway. Yankees, Mets and Sox would never allow it.

MikeS21
06-22-2012, 10:14 AM
Not sure if this is relevant to the discussion, but I just got this Tweet from the Reds:


On Sunday, the @Reds will pass 1 million in attendance, through 36 home games. That is the fastest to 1 million in the last 8 seasons.

WVRedsFan
06-22-2012, 06:07 PM
Not sure if this is relevant to the discussion, but I just got this Tweet from the Reds:
Very interesting on a few counts. It shows that the complaints about attendance are not warranted.

westofyou
06-22-2012, 06:20 PM
Very interesting on a few counts. It shows that the complaints about attendance are not warranted.

They aren't ?

The Reds are on pace for 2.2 million fans. They had that many last year, and still short of 2003 and 2004

TOBTTReds
06-22-2012, 06:27 PM
They aren't ?

The Reds are on pace for 2.2 million fans. They had that many last year, and still short of 2003 and 2004

Tough to "pace" attendance when all you are talking about is April, May, and two weeks of June. June-Aug are peak months.

As of June 19 last season, (right before the Yankees series) the Reds were on "pace" for 1.97 million.

oregonred
06-22-2012, 06:29 PM
The Reds are on pace for ~2.4M fans as many of the big weekend draws have yet to hit. 5 of 7 weekends after the ASB.

They are easily 200K ahead of last year's pace. I''m assuming another 105-110K weekend against the Twins.

westofyou
06-22-2012, 06:38 PM
Tough to "pace" attendance when all you are talking about is April, May, and two weeks of June. June-Aug are peak months.

As of June 19 last season, (right before the Yankees series) the Reds were on "pace" for 1.97 million.

Agreed, but until the cork pops and they out draw the past questions will be justified and they will linger

TOBTTReds
06-22-2012, 06:40 PM
Agreed, but until the cork pops and they out draw the past questions will be justified and they will linger

It is a fickle fan base, for sure. Had we won on Wed night, people would be lining the gates tonight probably.

oregonred
06-22-2012, 08:08 PM
Agreed, but until the cork pops and they out draw the past questions will be justified and they will linger

19 of the next 33 home dates through the end of August are weekend games. The Reds have been cleaning up on summer weekends the past few seasons. They'll draw ~1.1M over the next 33 games to be at 2M with 15 games left in September.

Only 14 of the first 33 so far have been weekend games.