If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(UPI)   MLB attendance is now down by 417,000 fans from last year at this time. Or as the Miami Marlins call 417,000 fans, a breakout season   (upi.com) divider line 54
    More: Fail, Major League Baseball, Marlins, Daunte Culpepper, Yankees, home games, Science News, Red Sox  
•       •       •

308 clicks; posted to Sports » on 18 Jul 2013 at 11:00 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



54 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-18 09:38:56 AM
Is that a lot? Attendance is up over 70 million per year now, so this is, like, a 1% drop.
 
2013-07-18 10:07:26 AM
Yeah, sorry about.  We Phillies fans haven't regularly selling out the ballpark for awhile.  For the first 14 home games in 2013, we drew 117,000 less fans than compared to 2012.

/it's Jimmy's fault
 
2013-07-18 10:32:57 AM

DamnYankees: Is that a lot? Attendance is up over 70 million per year now, so this is, like, a 1% drop.


It's a lot because I keep hearing how baseball is doing better than ever.
 
2013-07-18 10:50:42 AM
"The drop-off in attendance for live sporting events is getting worse," said Lee Igel, a professor of sports management at New York University.
"You've got a lot of competing factors in this, even bad weather," Igel explained. "But with the economy still sorting itself out, there's the huge cost of going to live events plus fighting through traffic and parking just to get to the games."
"And even more important is the experience of watching games in the comfort of your home on a big screen without the hassle at a stadium," Igel said. "That keeps a lot of people away."


this is the most half-assed attempt at an explanation i've ever seen.
 
2013-07-18 11:03:06 AM
meh.  ticket prices will still go up next year
 
2013-07-18 11:07:44 AM

thomps: "The drop-off in attendance for live sporting events is getting worse," said Lee Igel, a professor of sports management at New York University.
"You've got a lot of competing factors in this, even bad weather," Igel explained. "But with the economy still sorting itself out, there's the huge cost of going to live events plus fighting through traffic and parking just to get to the games."
"And even more important is the experience of watching games in the comfort of your home on a big screen without the hassle at a stadium," Igel said. "That keeps a lot of people away."

this is the most half-assed attempt at an explanation i've ever seen.


I agree with with the author regarding cost and traffic. It is easier and cheaper to sit home and watch, at the cost of seeing the whole field in action. Same foes for football, but at many of those stadiums you get to watch the game on a very large TV in the stadium.
 
2013-07-18 11:11:14 AM

simplicimus: thomps: "The drop-off in attendance for live sporting events is getting worse," said Lee Igel, a professor of sports management at New York University.
"You've got a lot of competing factors in this, even bad weather," Igel explained. "But with the economy still sorting itself out, there's the huge cost of going to live events plus fighting through traffic and parking just to get to the games."
"And even more important is the experience of watching games in the comfort of your home on a big screen without the hassle at a stadium," Igel said. "That keeps a lot of people away."

this is the most half-assed attempt at an explanation i've ever seen.

I agree with with the author regarding cost and traffic. It is easier and cheaper to sit home and watch, at the cost of seeing the whole field in action. Same foes for football, but at many of those stadiums you get to watch the game on a very large TV in the stadium.


right but it hasn't gotten easier or cheaper since last year has it? it reminds me of the old yogi berra quote: nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded.

the person is tossing out assumed long-term trends to explain very short-term fluctuations. probably has a long career ahead of him on a financial news channel.
 
2013-07-18 11:12:18 AM

thomps: "The drop-off in attendance for live sporting events is getting worse," said Lee Igel, a professor of sports management at New York University.
"You've got a lot of competing factors in this, even bad weather," Igel explained. "But with the economy still sorting itself out, there's the huge cost of going to live events plus fighting through traffic and parking just to get to the games."
"And even more important is the experience of watching games in the comfort of your home on a big screen without the hassle at a stadium," Igel said. "That keeps a lot of people away."

this is the most half-assed attempt at an explanation i've ever seen.


Really? Seems pretty concise and truthful.
 
2013-07-18 11:14:57 AM

thomps: "The drop-off in attendance for live sporting events is getting worse," said Lee Igel, a professor of sports management at New York University.
"You've got a lot of competing factors in this, even bad weather," Igel explained. "But with the economy still sorting itself out, there's the huge cost of going to live events plus fighting through traffic and parking just to get to the games."
"And even more important is the experience of watching games in the comfort of your home on a big screen without the hassle at a stadium," Igel said. "That keeps a lot of people away."

this is the most half-assed attempt at an explanation i've ever seen.


True, the economy is still sorting itself out but people opting to watch baseball "at home on a big screen?" Baseball is a terrible television product.
 
2013-07-18 11:16:23 AM
That difference is more than entirely explained by the Marlins home games. They've drawn 479,232 fewer fans at home than we'd expect from last year's attendance.
 
2013-07-18 11:18:17 AM
That's about 300 people per game.
 
2013-07-18 11:20:02 AM

DeWayne Mann: That difference is more than entirely explained by the Marlins home games. They've drawn 479,232 fewer fans at home than we'd expect from last year's attendance.



Thread over.


/the difference isn't even statistically significant
 
2013-07-18 11:21:01 AM

jaylectricity: It's a lot because I keep hearing how baseball is doing better than ever.


Something like 1500 games have been played so far so that's 250-300 people per game.

Last year was the 5th highest total attendance on record, so dropping 250-300 per game probably leaves it somewhere in the top 10.
 
2013-07-18 11:21:13 AM
"while the Boston Red Sox saw their 820-game sellout streak end this season."

That's because it was a load of manufactured bullshiat.

/I'm surprised attendance maintained decent levels during the recession
 
2013-07-18 11:21:14 AM

Lifeless: DeWayne Mann: That difference is more than entirely explained by the Marlins home games. They've drawn 479,232 fewer fans at home than we'd expect from last year's attendance.


Thread over.


/the difference isn't even statistically significant


But but but....numbers don't lie!
 
2013-07-18 11:21:20 AM
How about that run scoring is down across the league?  I haven't studied it out, but teams have half the starting lineup with averages under .250 and there are starters hitting under .200.

The cost is a factor too.  A decent seat at Yankee Stadium is >$100, with $9 beers and $6 hotdogs and $50-100 parking if you don't want to walk several blocks in the South Bronx on a summer night.  Yea, I'll stay home.
 
2013-07-18 11:21:50 AM
We had a thread a few months ago that posited that the younger generations are growing up playing soccer rather than baseball because soccer equipment costs far less than baseball equipment for a child, resulting in fewer young baseball fans. True or no, I have no idea. I grew up playing stickball, total cost of equipment maybe 50 cents.
 
2013-07-18 11:22:48 AM

henryhill: thomps: "The drop-off in attendance for live sporting events is getting worse," said Lee Igel, a professor of sports management at New York University.
"You've got a lot of competing factors in this, even bad weather," Igel explained. "But with the economy still sorting itself out, there's the huge cost of going to live events plus fighting through traffic and parking just to get to the games."
"And even more important is the experience of watching games in the comfort of your home on a big screen without the hassle at a stadium," Igel said. "That keeps a lot of people away."

this is the most half-assed attempt at an explanation i've ever seen.

Really? Seems pretty concise and truthful.


aside from the economy one (which is nonsensical when comparing this year's attendance to last year's)  they are the same excuses that have been given for low attendance in sports since the advent of the color television.
 
2013-07-18 11:25:15 AM

simplicimus: We had a thread a few months ago that posited that the younger generations are growing up playing soccer rather than baseball because soccer equipment costs far less than baseball equipment for a child, resulting in fewer young baseball fans. True or no, I have no idea. I grew up playing stickball, total cost of equipment maybe 50 cents.


Soccer players don't start sticking anything in their asses until at least high school.  Baseball Dad has his kids dipping and shooting up at 12, and over time, that gets expensive.
 
2013-07-18 11:26:46 AM

Wadded Beef: Baseball is a terrible television product.


I disagree.  I get the pitchFX thing, I get color commentary, I get replays of plays that DON'T go the home team's way, I get cheaper beer, etc.

I go to plenty of MLB games, but I don't feel that watching at home diminishes the game.
 
2013-07-18 11:30:39 AM

simplicimus: We had a thread a few months ago that posited that the younger generations are growing up playing soccer rather than baseball because soccer equipment costs far less than baseball equipment for a child, resulting in fewer young baseball fans. True or no, I have no idea. I grew up playing stickball, total cost of equipment maybe 50 cents.


Haven't they been saying this about soccer for 40 years?
 
2013-07-18 11:30:52 AM

tricycleracer: Wadded Beef: Baseball is a terrible television product.

I disagree.  I get the pitchFX thing, I get color commentary, I get replays of plays that DON'T go the home team's way, I get cheaper beer, etc.

I go to plenty of MLB games, but I don't feel that watching at home diminishes the game.


IMO, TV is better for a pitcher's duel.  Being there live is better for when there are men on and the ball is put in play.
 
2013-07-18 11:31:54 AM

simplicimus: We had a thread a few months ago that posited that the younger generations are growing up playing soccer rather than baseball because soccer equipment costs far less than baseball equipment for a child, resulting in fewer young baseball fans. True or no, I have no idea. I grew up playing stickball, total cost of equipment maybe 50 cents.


To compare, what's the cost of making a soccer ball out of a bunch of rags?
 
2013-07-18 11:33:54 AM
How many rainouts have there been this year?
 
2013-07-18 11:35:12 AM

DamnYankees: Haven't they been saying this about soccer for 40 years?


There's definitely more youth soccer now than there was when I was in elementary school and I'm only 29.

The MLS has a chicken/egg problem though in that they don't have the money to attract top talent and they're going to have trouble gaining viewership when they're the equivalent of AA and whatever good American players do come up get bought up by European clubs.
 
2013-07-18 11:36:55 AM

DamnYankees: simplicimus: We had a thread a few months ago that posited that the younger generations are growing up playing soccer rather than baseball because soccer equipment costs far less than baseball equipment for a child, resulting in fewer young baseball fans. True or no, I have no idea. I grew up playing stickball, total cost of equipment maybe 50 cents.

Haven't they been saying this about soccer for 40 years?


Probably. Perhaps it's seen as safer and cheaper that Baseball or Football at the school level.
 
2013-07-18 11:47:48 AM
It is not worth the hassle to go to a game. I have only been to one game at Safeco Field and that was as a guest at the Jamie Moyer suite about 6 years ago.
 
2013-07-18 11:51:16 AM
The Marlins are lucky to pull that in a single season.
 
2013-07-18 11:54:38 AM

DeWayne Mann: That difference is more than entirely explained by the Marlins home games. They've drawn 479,232 fewer fans at home than we'd expect from last year's attendance.


Yeah, this. There's no evidence to suggest an overall downtrend across the game. Many teams are still selling out, or coming close to it, for most of their home schedule. Miami had a brand new stadium with big name players last year, then said "F you" to the city and the fans responded. It's got nothing to do with a long term shift from baseball to soccer, or people watching on TV, or cost, or whatever.
 
2013-07-18 11:58:53 AM
The Brewers are ghastly this year too, I know their attendance is down quite a bit but they SHOULD still hit the 3mil mark for yearly attendance
 
2013-07-18 12:10:14 PM

dukeblue219: DeWayne Mann: That difference is more than entirely explained by the Marlins home games. They've drawn 479,232 fewer fans at home than we'd expect from last year's attendance.

Yeah, this. There's no evidence to suggest an overall downtrend across the game. Many teams are still selling out, or coming close to it, for most of their home schedule. Miami had a brand new stadium with big name players last year, then said "F you" to the city and the fans responded. It's got nothing to do with a long term shift from baseball to soccer, or people watching on TV, or cost, or whatever.


Some teams are up; other teams are down. Sort of like every other year.

It's worth noting that if every team was drawing EXACTLY as well as they did last year, the numbers would still fail to match up. I don't know if they would be up or down (mostly because I don't care), but they wouldn't be the same.
 
2013-07-18 12:24:42 PM
2500 people per Yankees game
x 90 games into the season
=
225,000 people not going to Yankees games

Half of that number is just the Yankees.
 
2013-07-18 12:35:25 PM
It's just a dying sport.  Will be obsolete in 50 years.  Hardly any kids today really even follow baseball.
 
2013-07-18 12:38:02 PM

jaylectricity: DamnYankees: Is that a lot? Attendance is up over 70 million per year now, so this is, like, a 1% drop.

It's a lot because I keep hearing how baseball is doing better than ever.


You got us. Baseball is dying and is going to be canceled next season, and no one will notice, giving a truckload of warm fuzzies to people who think that their preferred sport is The Chosen Pastime™ and should be played to the exclusion of everything else.

Man, we almost got away with that ruse.
 
2013-07-18 12:39:14 PM

Argyle82: It's just a dying sport.  Will be obsolete in 50 years.  Hardly any kids today really even follow baseball.


from forbes:

- The last nine baseball seasons (2004-2012) have produced the nine best-attended seasons in the history of Major League Baseball, including four successive record-breaking seasons from 2004-2007.  The 2012 attendance total ranks behind only the 2007 (1st), 2008 (2nd), 2006 (3rd) and 2005 (4th) seasons.
 
2013-07-18 12:43:54 PM
Here is a year to year attendance comparison from Baseball Reference.com

It suggests that year to year attendance is down by more than 1.5 million.
 
2013-07-18 12:44:01 PM
also worth noting that there have been over 30 postponed games this season vs. 21 all of last year. but no, i'm sure it's just that everyone discovered television over the offseason.
 
2013-07-18 12:57:04 PM

thomps: The last nine baseball seasons (2004-2012) have produced the nine best-attended seasons in the history of Major League Baseball


Somewhat meaningless; the last 15 baseball seasons (1998 to 2012) have produced the 15 most-games-played seasons in the history of Major League Baseball. I suspect this year will rank up there too.

notmtwain: It suggests that year to year attendance is down by more than 1.5 million.


And, again, that's just 1,000 less per game. And that's despite the fact that the Marlins are pulling in 11,000 fewer per home game.
 
2013-07-18 12:59:39 PM

DeWayne Mann: Somewhat meaningless; the last 15 baseball seasons (1998 to 2012) have produced the 15 most-games-played seasons in the history of Major League Baseball. I suspect this year will rank up there too.


not meaningless in the context of whether or not mlb is a "dying sport."  the fact that they can comfortably increase supply of the product indicates that they are still in a growth mode.
 
2013-07-18 01:09:54 PM
I love baseball, and my daughters love to go to games.

But since we live 2&1/2 hours from Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and DC, we do not get to many games.

There is something special about the buzz in a stadium.
 
2013-07-18 01:11:41 PM
I live near Atlanta, and the Braves are first in the NL East.  Other than hearing the scores on the radio I hear pretty much nothing about them.
 
2013-07-18 01:22:53 PM
It's not about attendance. It's about TV. Look at the money everyone is getting nationally. Look at what teams are getting from their local market deals. Baseball isn't going anywhere.
 
2013-07-18 01:37:05 PM
There's only one solution. Tear down Fenway, and build a 70,000 seat mega-stadium. Or maybe un-tarp the third deck in Oakland?

/four hours from the nearest MLB stadium
//nine hours from MY team's stadum
///MLBTV FTW!
 
2013-07-18 01:47:42 PM

ElwoodCuse: It's not about attendance. It's about TV. Look at the money everyone is getting nationally. Look at what teams are getting from their local market deals. Baseball isn't going anywhere.


interestingly, according to that forbes article i linked, tv viewership and attendance are trending together, so it's not a matter of people choosing one over the other.
 
2013-07-18 01:50:01 PM

Argyle82: It's just a dying sport.  Will be obsolete in 50 years.  Hardly any kids today really even follow baseball.


desmondismyconstant.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-07-18 01:57:31 PM

SpaceBison: Argyle82: It's just a dying sport.  Will be obsolete in 50 years.  Hardly any kids today really even follow baseball.

[desmondismyconstant.files.wordpress.com image 576x432]


It can't die until the London Kings form at least
 
2013-07-18 03:39:55 PM
It's nothing that another round of taxpayer funded stadiums wouldn't solve. Or at the very least, a new jumbotron the size of Rhode Island and an elimination of the public's share of parking revenue at the publicly owned facility.

RE: traffic, parking, etc. Yeah, that's going to be a problem as long as professional sports leagues are given anti-trust exemptions or the government looks the other way at anti-competitive actions. A city the size of NYC could support a dozen baseball teams over the metropolitan area. The stadiums would be smaller and each team could only afford one superstar player but it'd be much easier to get to and the prices would be much lower. Keeping the supply of teams artificially restrained has given teams a "too big to lose" power where they can demand taxpayer funded stadiums and then charge whatever they want to the public to see games in the stadium they paid for. But it does keep all the best talent concentrated in clumps so you can be thankful for that... except a team full of megastars doesn't always produce the best results.

Funniest and most out of touch solution I hear often is "move the stadium to 'name of suburb person speaking lives' to make it easy to get to". Yeah, that makes it easy for the people in that particular suburb to get there but makes it twice as hard for people in all the other suburbs spread around the metro area. And the first time they had a hard time getting home because of stadium traffic, suddenly it wouldn't seem like such a great idea after all.
 
2013-07-18 03:46:44 PM

EngineerAU: It's nothing that another round of taxpayer funded stadiums wouldn't solve. Or at the very least, a new jumbotron the size of Rhode Island and an elimination of the public's share of parking revenue at the publicly owned facility.

RE: traffic, parking, etc. Yeah, that's going to be a problem as long as professional sports leagues are given anti-trust exemptions or the government looks the other way at anti-competitive actions. A city the size of NYC could support a dozen baseball teams over the metropolitan area. The stadiums would be smaller and each team could only afford one superstar player but it'd be much easier to get to and the prices would be much lower. Keeping the supply of teams artificially restrained has given teams a "too big to lose" power where they can demand taxpayer funded stadiums and then charge whatever they want to the public to see games in the stadium they paid for. But it does keep all the best talent concentrated in clumps so you can be thankful for that... except a team full of megastars doesn't always produce the best results.

Funniest and most out of touch solution I hear often is "move the stadium to 'name of suburb person speaking lives' to make it easy to get to". Yeah, that makes it easy for the people in that particular suburb to get there but makes it twice as hard for people in all the other suburbs spread around the metro area. And the first time they had a hard time getting home because of stadium traffic, suddenly it wouldn't seem like such a great idea after all.


Well in the old days, I could take the subway to Yankee or Shea Stadiums. No driving hassles, no DWIs, etc. So the only expenses were tickets and beer.
 
2013-07-18 04:33:45 PM

simplicimus: We had a thread a few months ago that posited that the younger generations are growing up playing soccer rather than baseball because soccer equipment costs far less than baseball equipment for a child, resulting in fewer young baseball fans. True or no, I have no idea. I grew up playing stickball, total cost of equipment maybe 50 cents.


The latest fan demographics by sport that I've found (2010) shows that MLS fan base skews pretty young. Fans between the ages of 18-34 are 37.8% of the fan base, the largest for any sport. While for MLB it is the reverse, the 18-34 (28.0%) demo is the smallest part of the fan base and the 50+ set is the largest part of the fan base (43.1%) .

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2010/06/Issue-185/Th e- Back-Of-The-Book/Fan-Demographics-Among-Major-North-American-Sports-Le agues.aspx
 
2013-07-18 05:18:10 PM
but how many baseball players have killed people lately?
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report