Stadium/Arena Saga Omnibus

[AnPheitseog]

5 hours ago, TBGKon said:

2022 = https://www.espn.com/mlb/attendance/_/year/2022

 

2023 = https://www.espn.com/mlb/attendance

 

I know some teams aren't done with their home schedule so numbers will be more accurate year over year in a week, but this should be a decent baseline.  The top of the total attendance column doesn't change much.

 

For those who have completed their season.

- San Diego broke 3 million for 2023 and was just under 3 million in 2022. 

- Cincinnati broke 2 million in 2023, with a big increase of 642,540 total, just over 7900 per game

- Tampa Bay had an overall total increase of 312,174, just over 3800 more per game. 

- Miami was up 255,332, just over 3100 more per game.

- Pittsburgh was up 308,795, approx 3800 more per game.

- Texas was up 521,681, over 6400 more per game.

- Cubs up 158,369, over 1900 per game.

- Houston up 363,349, almost 4500 per game.

 

There were some drops so far

- Washington dropped by just under 2000 a game or 160,569 total.

- Dodgers down 24,329, about 300 per game.

Pirates growth is also because McCutchen is back. even with that, him alone doesnt contribute to 3800 MORE per game.

[BBTV]

1 hour ago, AnPheitseog said:

Pirates growth is also because McCutchen is back. even with that, him alone doesnt contribute to 3800 MORE per game.

 

Due to the puny size of their park, that's more than a 10% increase.  Even their fast start doesn't account for that (and there's no way McCutchen does.)

 

If that stat is accurate, I'm at a loss, even with the new fan-friendly rules.

[AnPheitseog]

1 minute ago, BBTV said:

 

Due to the puny size of their park, that's more than a 10% increase.  Even their fast start doesn't account for that (and there's no way McCutchen does.)

 

If that stat is accurate, I'm at a loss, even with the new fan-friendly rules.

Combo of:

 

Better play

Fan Friendly Rules

Quick Start

Penguins Early exit

Cutch

 

Opening weekend was close to sellouts, if not sold out. But evened out across, that's still too much. Perhaps the new schedule also factored in, with games against the yankees or red sox(i forget which were at PNC).

[ZapRowsdower8]

My best guess, from 2,500 miles away, is that there is a genuine excitement about some of the young guys in the farm system that have started coming up. Looks like another very short window is opening for the Pirates before it is blown up again in a few years. 

[throwuascenario]

On 9/25/2023 at 7:15 PM, BBTV said:

 

Due to the puny size of their park, that's more than a 10% increase.  Even their fast start doesn't account for that (and there's no way McCutchen does.)

 

If that stat is accurate, I'm at a loss, even with the new fan-friendly rules.

 

I don't think that math is right. The % increase should be as a % of their previous attendance, so the capacity of the stadium shouldn't matter. Like if they drew 5,000 per game (made up #) and went up to 5,500 per game, thay's a 10% increase regardless of how big the stadium is.

 

Also, I happen to think that an MLB team could work in Charlotte or Nashville. This is the one instance where having lost a generation of fans can actually be helpful. Both cities have huge numbers of young people coming from other places, but many don't have a strong affinity to other teams from those places.

 

Look at South End in Charlotte, which is very high in younger transplants. You see WAY more gear and whatnot for Charlotte FC than you do for the Panthers in that part of town. Because people already have NFL teams from wherever they're from but few have a strong allegiance to an MLS team. MLB could work the same way.

[Kramerica Industries]

By all means, lets build a new stadium in the same damn place where there's still going to be issues getting people from Tampa or Sarasota or Clearwater...how stupid can you be? I don't care for the argument of "not enough of a local fanbase", because the Lightning are also a '90s expansion franchise and they've been wildly popular for a long time. It's not a good argument. The difference is the Lightning play in downtown Tampa, a very accessible area with a larger population base that also can draw people from Orlando and Lakeland and Kissimmee if they want to make the drive. You don't get that in St. Petersburg, you're surrounded by the ing water in almost every direction and terrible rush hour traffic and people aren't making that g-ddamned drive on a regular basis.

 

Build a new stadium for the Rays in St. Petersburg, and all you get is the same arguments about attendance existing for the next 40+ years.

[BBTV]

Yeah, it should be a crime to invest any money in keeping that team there.  Shame on the Rays and their fans, and also shame on the Rangers fans for not taking advantage of the easy ticket grab and short/cheap flight.  It's BS that in some cities, 400-level seats are >$200, and in Tampa, a flight there + ticket is around the same.

 

No more arguments.  No more "it's the location", "if they build this village then people will live there and go", no more of it.  This team will forever be a black eye on MLB and a waste of good money.

[Sport]

13 hours ago, Kramerica Industries said:

By all means, lets build a new stadium in the same damn place where there's still going to be issues getting people from Tampa or Sarasota or Clearwater...how stupid can you be? I don't care for the argument of "not enough of a local fanbase", because the Lightning are also a '90s expansion franchise and they've been wildly popular for a long time. It's not a good argument. The difference is the Lightning play in downtown Tampa, a very accessible area with a larger population base that also can draw people from Orlando and Lakeland and Kissimmee if they want to make the drive. You don't get that in St. Petersburg, you're surrounded by the ing water in almost every direction and terrible rush hour traffic and people aren't making that g-ddamned drive on a regular basis.

 

Build a new stadium for the Rays in St. Petersburg, and all you get is the same arguments about attendance existing for the next 40+ years.

 

I've argued for keeping the team in the Tampa Bay area provided they put the new stadium in actual dang ass TAMPA. Never did it occur to me that they'd be stupid enough to put the new one in the same location that is the root cause of all their current problems. 

 

Under 20k for a playoff game should never happen. I don't care that it's a day game. 

[Sodboy13]

Guys, don't worry, the new stadium is going to be much smaller, so even though attendance will still be embarrassingly low and the location will actively push would-be attendees away, the price of each ticket will be higher and the owner will make more money. And gosh, isn't that what we all really want to see as baseball fans?

[who do you think]

Useless franchise should be obliterated and the baseball ops people that keep on discovering and developing good players for this team-for-nobody should be folded into Pittsburgh or some other place that would actually appreciate it. Bradenton's just a drive away. Don't get me started on what I hope happens to Marlins Park II.

 

On 9/29/2023 at 1:30 PM, throwuascenario said:

Also, I happen to think that an MLB team could work in Charlotte or Nashville. This is the one instance where having lost a generation of fans can actually be helpful. Both cities have huge numbers of young people coming from other places, but many don't have a strong affinity to other teams from those places.

 

Look at South End in Charlotte, which is very high in younger transplants. You see WAY more gear and whatnot for Charlotte FC than you do for the Panthers in that part of town. Because people already have NFL teams from wherever they're from but few have a strong allegiance to an MLS team. MLB could work the same way.

 

[GDAWG]

I am curious if the "Pro-Contraction in MLB" folks have ideas on how to contract 2-4 teams in the MLB while at the same time making sure that the Players Association is on board with this idea (because they won't be if it was to actually happen).  Expanding the rosters of the existing teams by 10-15 players isn't going to work because not all of the existing teams will use the extra players and not all of the extra players will play.  

[who do you think]

6 hours ago, GDAWG said:

I am curious if the "Pro-Contraction in MLB" folks have ideas on how to contract 2-4 teams in the MLB while at the same time making sure that the Players Association is on board with this idea (because they won't be if it was to actually happen).  Expanding the rosters of the existing teams by 10-15 players isn't going to work because not all of the existing teams will use the extra players and not all of the extra players will play.  

 

Not my problem.

[McCall]

3 hours ago, who do you think said:

 

Not my problem.

Not gonna happen.

[OnWis97]

MLB missed its chance to contract. Now too many teams have publicly funded 9-figure ballparks.  They could have contracted four out of the Marlins, Expos, Twins, A's, and Rays in 2001...but I think it was the lease on the Rays ballpark that messed with that, in part.

 

I'm not sure what the right move was...These teams had various histories and fanbases. Even for a small fanbase, killing off a team was probably a questionable PR move.  Given the union's likely response, it was probably a bargaining chip and empty threat the entire time, anyway.

[GDAWG]

4 hours ago, who do you think said:

 

Not my problem.

 

Contraction is not happening anyways.  The best case scenario is keeping all 30 teams.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

13 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

They could have contracted four out of the Marlins, Expos, Twins, A's, and Rays in 2001

 

The A's and Twins should never even be considered for contraction, as they are original American League teams that date to the league's founding in 1901.

 

Anyway, instead of contracting, Major League Baseball could simply have not expanded.  The last two expansions really should not have happened.  Of the four new teams, three (Marlins, Rays, Diamondbacks) should not exist at all, as Florida and Arizona are for spring training only. And Denver could have eventually gotten a team by moving the Expos there.

 

But now that these teams are here, they're here to stay.  And rightfully so; indeed, another expansion is desirable, as 32 teams is preferable from a scheduling standpoint.  (In a sane world, getting to 32 teams would be the reason to get rid of both interleague play and the wild card.  Alas, our world is far from sane.)

 

In any case, further expansion or no, they really ought to get those teams out of Florida!  This is why I am very sad to learn of a new stadium deal for the Rays.  (Unfortunately, there's no moving the Diamondbacks, as that team serves a large geographical area.)

[GDAWG]

1 minute ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

The A's and Twins should never even be considered for contraction, as they are original American League teams that date to the league's founding in 1901.

 

Anyway, instead of contracting, Major League Baseball could simply have not expanded.  The last two expansions really should not have happened.  Of the four new teams, three (Marlins, Rays, Diamondbacks) should not exist at all, as Florida and Arizona are for spring training only. And Denver could have eventually gotten a team by moving the Expos there.

 

But now that these teams are here, they're here to stay.  And rightfully so; indeed, another expansion is desirable, as 32 teams is preferable from a scheduling standpoint.  (In a sane world, getting to 32 teams would be the reason to get rid of both interleague play and the wild card.  Alas, our world is far from sane.)

 

In any case, further expansion or no, they really ought to get those teams out of Florida!  This is why I am very sad to learn of a new stadium deal for the Rays.  (Unfortunately, there's no moving the Diamondbacks, as that team serves a large geographical area.)

 

If the D'Backs move, it will probably be in the Phoenix metro area.  

 

I do think all of the expansion cities have serious flaws, but out of all of them, I think I would choose Nashville.  If the A's actually got a deal in Oakland, I would have also said Las Vegas, but I am skeptical about Salt Lake City and Portland but if I had to chose one of them, I would pick Salt Lake City.  

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

13 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

I do think all of the expansion cities have serious flaws, but out of all of them, I think I would choose Nashville. 

 

Nashville is everyone's favourite.  And they have an active potential ownership group in waiting, led by Dave Stewart.  So that city goes to the front of the pack.

 

 

14 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

If the A's actually got a deal in Oakland, I would have also said Las Vegas, but I am skeptical about Salt Lake City and Portland but if I had to chose one of them, I would pick Salt Lake City.  

 

Las Vegas is a terrible idea, either for a relocated team or an expansion team.  The unavoidable reality is that that city will not be there in its current form in a few decades.  Even as that city currently stands, it will constitute the smallest home market in Major League Baseball, and there is no way that the A's — or any team apart from the Dodgers — could draw regularly there.  (For the NFL, Las Vegas is fine, on account of the practice of opposition fans travelling to a weekly game, and working that game into a trip to Vegas.  But for the other sports, that city is a disaster waiting to happen.  The Golden Knights will soon look back on this early period as though it had happened in another reality.)

 

The same issues that doom Las Vegas in the long term apply to Salt Lake City, as well as, to varying extents, to the entire Southwest.  Major League Baseball should stay away from that region.

 

Portland is probably very close to being as good a choice as Nashville.  Its MLS team ranks comfortably in the league's top third in attendance.  And a Major League Baseball expansion team's potential ownership group includes Russell Wilson.

 

Still, I am more intrigued with the idea of pushing beyond the continental U.S.  For the Pacific Northwest, Vancouver seems like it should be under consideration.  Also, San Juan has always intrigued me as a location for a Major League team, as has Mexico City.  Of course, whether any of these cities has an ownership group that is both interested and capable, I have no idea.  But I hope that Major League Baseball is engaged in investigating these possibilities.

[GDAWG]

59 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Nashville is everyone's favourite.  And they have an active potential ownership group in waiting, led by Dave Stewart.  So that city goes to the front of the pack.

 

 

 

Las Vegas is a terrible idea, either for a relocated team or an expansion team.  The unavoidable reality is that that city will not be there in its current form in a few decades.  Even as that city currently stands, it will constitute the smallest home market in Major League Baseball, and there is no way that the A's — or any team apart from the Dodgers — could draw regularly there.  (For the NFL, Las Vegas is fine, on account of the practice of opposition fans travelling to a weekly game, and working that game into a trip to Vegas.  But for the other sports, that city is a disaster waiting to happen.  The Golden Knights will soon look back on this early period as though it had happened in another reality.)

 

The same issues that doom Las Vegas in the long term apply to Salt Lake City, as well as, to varying extents, to the entire Southwest.  Major League Baseball should stay away from that region.

 

Portland is probably very close to being as good a choice as Nashville.  Its MLS team ranks comfortably in the league's top third in attendance.  And a Major League Baseball expansion team's potential ownership group includes Russell Wilson.

 

Still, I am more intrigued with the idea of pushing beyond the continental U.S.  For the Pacific Northwest, Vancouver seems like it should be under consideration.  Also, San Juan has always intrigued me as a location for a Major League team, as has Mexico City.  Of course, whether any of these cities has an ownership group that is both interested and capable, I have no idea.  But I hope that Major League Baseball is engaged in investigating these possibilities.

 

Nobody tell the NBA that since Vegas is a lock to get an NBA team alongside Seattle (although I think it should be Seattle and someone else, like Louisville or Mexico City).

 

I have read that the issue with Mexico City is that the elevation is much higher than Denver and that the players might prefer Monterrey over Mexico City.  

[TBGKon]

9 minutes ago, GDAWG said:

I have read that the issue with Mexico City is that the elevation is much higher than Denver and that the players might prefer Monterrey over Mexico City.  

I also have seen Monterrey as the likely candidate if the time comes.