Personally, I find it an interesting item to throw into the mix as we consider the what it means to be a Reds fan.
By the way, I notice that woy commented that the Reds fans historically support only winners. Maybe so, but isn't that par for the course in almost all cities? Witness Denver now compared to the early years; Atlanta of the last few years compared to the lean years; Cleveland's ups and downs depending on their location in the standings, etc. I'm always a little puzzled when I hear the Reds fans singled out as 'only supporting winners'. With a few exceptions, I think that is to be expected.
Very true Bob, the general argument is that the Front Office cries too much about attendance and that the Reds fans are the most loyal aout there as far as attending games.
Alot of my data comes from the Congressional hearings on baseball in 1952.. that's where I get the old data for attendance, the Reds were usualy 6th in an 8 team league, bottomed out by the Phillies and Boston, both poor cousins in a 2 team town.
Remember though that until the 50's the NL and Al had 6 and 5 teams that shared cities so Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Washington and Detroit all were competing against nobody but themselves. Detroit has always drawn well and until the late 50's Cleveland drew well too (56 was their first post war year under 1 million, which just so happens became the year the Reds first hit 1 million)
I agree that the midwest towns (except St. Louis and Chicago Cubs)experience the ups and downs of attendance along with wins.
I just see it as more extreme in Cincinnati