Stadium/Arena Saga Omnibus

[BBTV]

1 minute ago, _J_ said:

PNC Park is only 38k and it's perfect. 

 

LV should be looking at the same size, as well as the majority of new parks.

 

IT's relative.  CBP is around 44k and I think that works for them.  Making it smaller is like saying that you don't expect to often have good teams.  Making it bigger is like saying you always expect to be a contender.  That might work for some teams, but I think 44 is the sweet spot for the Phillies.  The downside is that when they're good, the secondary market is obscene because they'll sell out 5 or more straight seasons.  The good side is that when they're usually bad, even 25k doesn't look too bad in a 44k park (except when most of the premium seats behind home plate are empty - that's certainly not a good look.

[rmc523]

Still seems like such a stupid concept.

[ClevelandBaronsNHLfan]

On 12/23/2019 at 5:42 PM, infrared41 said:

 

Cleveland has had more hockey teams than I can remember. AHL, WHA, NHL, IHL, and back to AHL.  None of them have been particularly successful. It's not the Coliseum's fault that hockey has never worked here. That aside, I think the WHA's Crusaders, a team in a league that wasn't the NHL, averaged about 6,500 a game in their short tenure at the Coliseum because they were pretty good. At that time, in this area, 6,500 a game for hockey is like getting 35,000 a game for baseball. The Barons 2.0 New NHL Version wouldn't have worked if they had played downtown for free. Whatever the Indoor Soccer League team was supposed to be did well despite the games being played in Richfield. Indoor soccer fans set an attendance record there. I don't think you can use hockey's failure as some sort of proof that the Coliseum was a failure. But what do I know, I was only here for the entire existence of the Richfield Coliseum. Granted, living here and following those teams doesn't give me the same expertise as a Brewers fan who read some articles, but I do think I have some perspective on the matter. 

 

 

The original Cleveland Barons were very successful in the ahl winning nine Calder Cups. The current ahl team one the cup in 2016.

[infrared41]

8 minutes ago, ClevelandBaronsNHLfan said:

The original Cleveland Barons were very successful in the ahl winning nine Calder Cups. The current ahl team one the cup in 2016.

 

I was talking about attendance, but thanks. 

[RedRenesis]

On 10/22/2019 at 9:58 PM, _J_ said:

That was, from my memory, the reason behind the design on PNC Park. Owners wanted an intimate ballpark that emphasised the view of the city over adding additional seats. One of the best ballparks for those reasons.

 

Let's be fair here, the Pirates built a small ball park because they sucked for years before it was built and no one was showing up.  Having maybe 20k at a Bucs game in Three Rivers that held 50k wasn't a good look.  So they turned around and designed their 'small intimate ballpark'.  It's the same end point Snyder is going towards with FedEx, just coming in from a different direction, by removing half the upper bowl for the same reason. 

Now, credit where it's due.  PNC is a fantastically designed building, and the Pirates and HOK deserves all the praise they've gotten for how it turned out.  But if they were a better drawing team that stadium would have been built with a club level with an additional 5,000 seats.  

[crashcarson15]

On 2/27/2020 at 9:39 PM, BringBackTheVet said:

 

IT's relative.  CBP is around 44k and I think that works for them.  Making it smaller is like saying that you don't expect to often have good teams.  Making it bigger is like saying you always expect to be a contender.  That might work for some teams, but I think 44 is the sweet spot for the Phillies.  The downside is that when they're good, the secondary market is obscene because they'll sell out 5 or more straight seasons.  The good side is that when they're usually bad, even 25k doesn't look too bad in a 44k park (except when most of the premium seats behind home plate are empty - that's certainly not a good look.

I don't think the relativity is based on expected success, rather on market size and dynamics. The Indians have been one of the best franchises in baseball over the last 7 years, and certainly fit the "always expect to be a contender" bill right now, but recently reduced capacity of their ballpark (and aren't filling the smaller number either).

 

For about a quarter of the clubs in the league, I'd make the case that if a new ballpark were to be built, it shouldn't have a permanent capacity larger than 35,000. I'd say there are 9 true "small-market" clubs in baseball -- Cincinnati, Cleveland, Kansas City, Milwaukee and Pittsburgh have much lower populations than any other markets in baseball; Baltimore and Oakland are geographically constrained; Miami and Tampa Bay are in the wacky Florida sports climate. For whatever reason, the Brewers draw out their ass and buck the trend, but for the other 8 clubs in that list:

• The Royals drew 2.5 million fans in 2015 and 2016, the only 2 times they've ever done so
• The Orioles last drew 2.5 million fans in 2005
• The Indians last drew 2.5 million fans in 2002
• The Reds last drew 2.5 million fans in 2000; the only other time they'd done so was from 1976 through 1978
• The Rays only drew 2.5 million fans in 1998, their inaugural season
• The Marlins only drew 2.5 million fans in 1993, their inaugural season
• The A's last drew 2.5 million fans from 1989 through 1991, the only time they've done so in franchise history
• The Pirates have never drawn 2.5 million fans in a season

There's no reason that any of these clubs need more than 35,000 permanent seats in their stadium -- and Miami aside, it's not like these numbers are being influenced solely by bad baseball. Baltimore, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh each made 3 postseason appearances this decade that broke 15- or 20-year droughts; Oakland and Tampa Bay have made pretty regular playoff appearances and have shrewd front offices. That the recent high-water mark for these clubs is the Royals averaging ~33,000 the season after they broke a 28-year postseason drought to go to the World Series tells me that none of these clubs need a park larger than 35,000, irrespective of how good they expect to be.

 

The teams themselves recognize this, too -- Miami and Pittsburgh built their ballparks small; Kansas City kept capacity small in its renovation; Cleveland and Tampa Bay have reduced capacity as they can within their stadiums. When Oakland builds its new park and joins the trend, it'll be appropriate for them.

[Gothamite]

Even the mighty Yankees decided they’d be better off lowering capacity.  Most games feel more crowded, which to them was worth not being able to sell those extra seats for big games. 

[Cujo]

Oakland fans after the Warriors, Raiders and A's all dip out

 

[monkeypower]

I was reading through the Angels history on Wikipedia, because I've got nothing better to do, and I noticed some things.

 

Quote

In 1962, under the terms of their agreement with O'Malley, the Angels moved to Dodger Stadium, which they referred to as Chavez Ravine.

 

In 1964, [...] The need for a new stadium became more evident. It was believed that the Angels would never develop a large fan base while playing as tenants of the Dodgers. Also, O'Malley imposed fairly onerous lease conditions on the Angels; for example, he charged them for 50% of all stadium supplies, even though the Angels at the time drew at best half of the Dodgers' attendance.

Stymied in his attempt to get a new stadium in Los Angeles, Autry looked elsewhere. His first choice for a stadium was the site offered by the city of Long Beach. However, the city insisted that the team be renamed the Long Beach Angels, a condition Autry refused to accept. He was able to strike a deal with the suburban city of Anaheim in Orange County, and construction began on Anaheim Stadium (nicknamed The Big A by Southern Californians), where the Angels moved in 1966. On September 2, 1965, team ownership announced the Los Angeles Angels would thenceforth be known as the California Angels, in anticipation of the team's move to Anaheim the following year.

 

So it was believed the Angels would never develop a fanbase trying to play underneath the Dodgers and then owner balked at a team name preferred by a city and it impacted stadium issues?

 

Time is a flat circle.

[The_Admiral]

Big-time passive voice there -- it was believed by whom? I think the real story is that the O'Malleys gouging them on revenues was never gonna work in the long run.

 

Long Beach would have been interesting. I looked into it further and the stadium would have been where an "El Dorado Park" currently is, which I guessed was a racecourse but is, in fact, an actual park. How pleasant. It's about twelve miles west of Anaheim Stadium, six miles inland from the convention center, and twenty miles south of Dodger Stadium. I think that really would have been an ideal location in terms of keeping one foot in Los Angeles while still reaching out to the growing suburbs to the east. Not that Anaheim was a disaster by any means, but Long Beach probably would have been better. Maybe they even could have bared their teeth on the whole name-change thing and remained an L.A. team forever.

 

EDIT: here's what the O'Malleys pulled, baseball owners really were just elevated carnies

 

What didn’t raise the Angels’ ire?

* They were billed for window washing in catacomb offices at Dodger Stadium that had no windows.

* They objected to being charged half of the cost of resurfacing and repainting the parking lot because they received none of the parking revenue.

* They complained when regularly billed for landscape maintenance, arguing that the Dodgers were going to landscape no matter how many tenants they had.

* And, in what they considered the ultimate swipe, they angrily complained when charged for half a season of toilet paper, insisting it should have been prorated on the basis of attendance.

[monkeypower]

Yeah it's passive voice, it is just a long Wikipedia writeup at the end of the day and I don't think many peers are reviewing the "History of the Los Angeles Angels" page. I was more aiming to the part there's (apparently) been a history with the Angels and their name. 

[TBGKon]

After seeing highlights of the KBL, it makes me wonder if something like the NC Dinos stadium should be a model for the Rays to follow in Tampa Bay.  It seats 22k as is, but could be configured a little bit differently to allow for a few more, and allows for social gathering spaces.

 

 

[bosrs1]

3 hours ago, TBGKon said:

After seeing highlights of the KBL, it makes me wonder if something like the NC Dinos stadium should be a model for the Rays to follow in Tampa Bay.  It seats 22k as is, but could be configured a little bit differently to allow for a few more, and allows for social gathering spaces.

 

 

 

And it would need some form of roof I'd think being in Florida. 

[BBTV]

If a team needs to reduce their capacity to 22k just to fill it, that's an indication that there shouldn't be a team there.  I'm not advocating for the return of 50k-60k stadiums, but something like what the Pirates have should be the minimum (I think it's 35k).  It's just a minor-league look to have such a small stadium, and it really sucks for fans too, since if the team ever does get any support, the tiny capacity will just freeze too many people out.

[GDAWG]

If MLB comes back without any fans, it will basically be business as usual for the Rays.

[SFGiants58]

5 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

If MLB comes back without any fans, it will basically be business as usual for the Rays.

What an original joke. I’ve totally never seen it before.

[The_Admiral]

3 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

If a team needs to reduce their capacity to 22k just to fill it, that's an indication that there shouldn't be a team there.  I'm not advocating for the return of 50k-60k stadiums, but something like what the Pirates have should be the minimum (I think it's 35k).  It's just a minor-league look to have such a small stadium, and it really sucks for fans too, since if the team ever does get any support, the tiny capacity will just freeze too many people out.

 

Agreed, 35,000-50,000 seems to be the ideal range for baseball (and really, you shouldn't be going above 45,000 unless you're the Yankees or Dodgers, or maybe the Mets). Dip into the 20s, and you're charging major-league prices for a minor-league venue -- in fact, you might even try to get away with charging more for the "intimate experience," which would be highly stupid in Florida for obvious market-saturation reasons.

[BBTV]

1 hour ago, the admiral said:

 

Agreed, 35,000-50,000 seems to be the ideal range for baseball (and really, you shouldn't be going above 45,000 unless you're the Yankees or Dodgers, or maybe the Mets). Dip into the 20s, and you're charging major-league prices for a minor-league venue -- in fact, you might even try to get away with charging more for the "intimate experience," which would be highly stupid in Florida for obvious market-saturation reasons.

 

I'd err on the side of too big.  When the Phillies had a 5+ year sellout streak (I think CBP is 45k), it was nearly impossible for a parent to take their kids to a major league game without paying an unreasonable amount of money, and even then, it was probably SRO.  I'd rather for major league baseball (and sports in general) to be more accessible to people, and not be big business for scumbag resellers.

[Digby]

Yeah, I don’t miss the days of cavernous multiuse ballparks, but I don’t love the excuse of “more intimate” as a dog whistle for “more luxury seats”. Something tells me we’re gonna go the wrong way on that particular issue in the coming 1-3 years, though.

[infrared41]

1 hour ago, Digby said:

Yeah, I don’t miss the days of cavernous multiuse ballparks

 

You haven't lived until you watch a baseball game with 3500 other people in a stadium that seats 80,000.