A 10 Dance

Dave Paisley

Here we are in late January, and rare gems as Chuck Knoblauch, Luis Alicea, James Baldwin, Jay Bell, Jeff Reboulet and Mike Benjamin are all still available on the free agent market. Wow, what?s up with that? Of course, there?s also Chuck Finley, Kenny Rogers, Rick Helling and Robert Person. Oh, and Ivan Rodriguez. Seems to me there are a lot of spare parts out there waiting to be picked up and fitted onto the 2003 model ball clubs.

It seems like this has been the most sluggish free agent market since the collusion days, and so, naturally, the C word has cropped up numerous times this winter. But also naturally, most of that talk is from agents, who have an ax to grind anyway. Maybe this is just the year that the majority of clubs (Yankees excepted) realize that up and coming youngsters in their system are just as likely to play well as many of these overpriced middle of the pack veterans, and at a much cheaper price. I guess we?ll see in another month or so whether the discipline holds.

Meanwhile, I was musing recently about the effect of team quality on attendance. And by team quality, I mean whether the team wins and is in contention, as well as being entertaining to watch. But let me tell you, watching the Mariners win 116 games in 2001 was pretty darn entertaining no matter how they won.

So I decided to do a little numerical research. First, I limited myself to the American League, and then also to the last five years. That?s 70 team-seasons, not a huge amount, but enough to see some general trends. First, I threw them all on one big chart and plotted attendance per game versus winning percentage. Without showing which team is which here are those results:

I wasn?t surprised to see that there is a correlation, but I was surprised at how weak it is. There are weird scatters all over the place ? for instance, the highest attendance on the chart is the .488/45.500 point is the Orioles 1998 season. Now that was definitely carry over from their excellent 1997 season. They subsequently have plummeted as the team has deteriorated.

Down the bottom right, there?s a .565/19,800 point. No surprises for guessing that?s probably the A?s—their 2000 season, in fact. From this we can conclude that winning does have an effect on attendance, but that there can be a lag of a season before positive or negative effects show up in attendance. This can partly, or maybe even mostly, be explained by the season ticket and other advance sales factor. If a good team takes a sudden nose-dive, many of the tickets for that season have already been bought. The next season, though, advance sales will be well down, as will general interest.

If a bad team suddenly has a good year, the reverse applies. There may well be a lot of walkup sales during the good season, but the major effect is the optimism and advance ticket sales it creates for the next year.

With that in mind, let?s take a look at the AL divisions one by one so we can see some individual team effects. First, here?s the East:

It?s interesting to see how each team?s line tends to stay in roughly the same place. Take the Yankees. They?ve been as successful as anyone from 1998-2002, and their attendance doesn?t change much. The winning percentage varies from about .700 in their 114 win 1998 season, to their lackluster 2000 when they finished with a .540 winning percentage but still won the division. The Orioles, on the other hand, were pretty good in 1997, but have drifted out of contention ever since, and the ongoing effect is dwindling attendance.

The Devil Rays were new in 1998, and hence drew over 30,000 to each game, The novelty has worn off, though, and last season they were barely into five figures. The Blue Jays were once the attendance leaders, but fell off dramatically in the mid-nineties under Cito Gaston. They were decent in 1998, but their wins have steadily declined, as has attendance even though they finished third every year in this span.

Finally, the Red Sox have the tightest grouping. The limited capacity of Fenway Park virtually guarantees attendance will cap out around 30,000, and they?ve also been a decent team that has finished second every year for the last five years.

Over in the Central, here?s the picture:

It looks like wins are more of a commodity in the Central than they are in the East. Lacking the grand tradition of the Yankees and Red Sox, these teams live and die by wins, and the effect is much more immediate. Look at the Indians ? once guaranteed a division win, they won handily with .550 winning percentages. One bad season, though and attendance immediately plummeted by 10,000. Of course, they foolishly tipped their hand last winter, though, when they dumped almost the entire team, hence affecting advance sales.

The Tigers have never reached .500 in the last five years, but the opening of Comerica Park inspired both a few more wins and a few more butts in seats. It was pretty short lived, though, and attendance stinks one more. So without a decent team, we can assume that new park effect lasts about one season.

The Royals haven?t been very good either, but they?ve been real consistent about it, as have their fans, who show up at a 20,000 clip to see their hapless team perform. The Twins and the White Sox seem to have roughly the same kind of fans, and the same kind of mercurial teams. With winning percentages varying from the dire to the contending, their fans follow along remarkably well. We can probably attribute this to few advance sales, but lots of walk ups when the team is doing well.

Finally, there?s the West:

The West appears to be a case of the ?haves? and the ?have nots?. Fans, that is. The Mariners have been at least moderately successful since 1995. In fact, given their history, even the sub-.500 years of 1998 and 1999 could be deemed ?quite successful?. With a new stadium in 2000 and 116 wins in 2001, attendance took off to league leading levels. It will be interesting to see where attendance heads if the team drops back to .500 or below.

The Rangers are an interesting phenomenon. Second in attendance in the division, and roughly fifth in the league the last five years, attendance has barely dropped off as the team has struggled mightily for the last three seasons. Maybe the 2001 uptick can be attributed to advance sales due to the optimism engendered by the A-Rod signing, and the drop in 2002 attributed to the realization that one player doesn?t make a team. This year could be make or break for Tom Hicks on the attendance front.

The Angels have also had remarkably steady attendance despite widely varying results on the field. But even the pennant chase of 2002 couldn?t get them past the 30,000 mark. And speaking of 30,000, the A?s, despite being one of the most exciting young teams in baseball the last three years, have failed to crack that ceiling. If they falter at all on the field, I get the feeling attendance will be back at 15,000 before you say ?Fire Billy Beane!?

So there you have it. Does winning affect attendance? Sure it does. But winning this year means more ticket sales next year almost more than it does this year. And local situations often limit fluctuations in attendance to a large degree. All I know is that I have my season tickets, so I?ll be there this year?

about the author

Got your tickets for this season? My commiserations if you're a Pirate fan. But look on the bright side - no pesky expensive playoff tickets to buy! Send your "Why I buy tickets to baseball game stories to Dave Paisley at drdjp@strikethree.com.