What are some of the best baseball cities?

[Rockstar Matt]

I know I'm a homer cause I'm a Cardinals fan but 2 things point to St. Louis being one of the best (one good and one bad)

first, St. Louis is one of only a few teams that outdraws the population base. Now I know this isn't the best indicator but its something to consider. These are based on last year's attendance and this an estimated population of the metro area. The number is a percentage of the metro population that went to see the team play in 2010.

Milwaukee 1.58

St. Louis 1.18

Colorado 1.12

Minnesota 0.98

Cincinnati 0.96

San Francisco 0.81

Kansas City 0.73

San Diego 0.68

Pittsburgh 0.68

Boston 0.67

Chicago Cubs 0.64

Baltimore 0.64

Seattle 0.63

Cleveland 0.61

Philadelphia 0.59

Detroit 0.57

Arizona 0.49

Atlanta 0.47

Los Angeles Dodgers 0.46

Tampa Bay 0.46

Chicago White Sox 0.42

Los Angeles Angels 0.42

New York Yankees 0.39

Texas 0.38

Oakland 0.38

Houston 0.38

Washington 0.32

Toronto 0.31

Florida 0.27

New York Mets 0.27

But these numbers can be misleading. Like for instance, the numbers for the Los Angeles and New York teams are rather low, but take into account the Los Angeles area alone has almost 18 million people, and the New York area has around 19 million people. Ever seen a satellite picture of the Los Angeles area? From the Ventura County to Newport and Oceanside and all the way to the San Bernardino Mountains and ending around Palm Springs? It's solid city. It's amazing to see from above.

But, that's why are baseball attendance percentages are low. Because we have too many people. (And also we love frontrunners/no one wants to go see an Angels or Dodgers game when the Lakers are playing in the Playoffs or especially the Finals. )

The LA area can be a great baseball town. I mean, most of LA still loves the Dodgers, but they suck. And we're not very good at rooting for losers. During the two most recent times the Dodgers competed for the pennant, it was Dodger-Mania all over town. LA loves their Dodgers almost as much as they love the Lakers but there's only one difference. Lakers are always good, and Dodgers haven't been consistently good for a while.

[McCall]

I know I'm a homer cause I'm a Cardinals fan but 2 things point to St. Louis being one of the best (one good and one bad)

first, St. Louis is one of only a few teams that outdraws the population base. Now I know this isn't the best indicator but its something to consider. These are based on last year's attendance and this an estimated population of the metro area. The number is a percentage of the metro population that went to see the team play in 2010.

Milwaukee 1.58

St. Louis 1.18

Colorado 1.12

Minnesota 0.98

Cincinnati 0.96

San Francisco 0.81

Kansas City 0.73

San Diego 0.68

Pittsburgh 0.68

Boston 0.67

Chicago Cubs 0.64

Baltimore 0.64

Seattle 0.63

Cleveland 0.61

Philadelphia 0.59

Detroit 0.57

Arizona 0.49

Atlanta 0.47

Los Angeles Dodgers 0.46

Tampa Bay 0.46

Chicago White Sox 0.42

Los Angeles Angels 0.42

New York Yankees 0.39

Texas 0.38

Oakland 0.38

Houston 0.38

Washington 0.32

Toronto 0.31

Florida 0.27

New York Mets 0.27

But these numbers can be misleading. Like for instance, the numbers for the Los Angeles and New York teams are rather low, but take into account the Los Angeles area alone has almost 18 million people, and the New York area has around 19 million people. Ever seen a satellite picture of the Los Angeles area? From the Ventura County to Newport and Oceanside and all the way to the San Bernardino Mountains and ending around Palm Springs? It's solid city. It's amazing to see from above.

But, that's why are baseball attendance percentages are low. Because we have too many people. (And also we love frontrunners/no one wants to go see an Angels or Dodgers game when the Lakers are playing in the Playoffs or especially the Finals. )

The LA area can be a great baseball town. I mean, most of LA still loves the Dodgers, but they suck. And we're not very good at rooting for losers. During the two most recent times the Dodgers competed for the pennant, it was Dodger-Mania all over town. LA loves their Dodgers almost as much as they love the Lakers but there's only one difference. Lakers are always good, and Dodgers haven't been consistently good for a while.

As far as the attendance percentage goes, yes the population does in fact make the numbers very misleading. But the other part of your post shows why it is NOT one of the top baseball cities. True baseball cities are distinguished by the support and general interest in the game by the population no matter how bad the team is, which is why most of the general "top" baseball cities are called such. Cardinals, Brewers, Reds and Cubs fans show up and root for their teams no matter what. That shows the love they have for baseball and THAT'S what makes them great baseball cities. (This does apply to Boston as well)

[Gothamite]

Yeah, I don't think this particular data point is in and of itself conclusive. It's just one interesting, if somewhat trivial, element.

But LA's love of frontrunners make it something less than a fantastic baseball town.

[BBTV]

The Phillies sold out every game last year (technically they were around 105% capacity) and their number is 0.59 because the metro area has over 6M people. It's really a worthless number.

[illwauk]

Both Baltimore and Kansas City are just waiting for a team to support.

Sorry, waiting for a good team to support precludes you from being a great baseball town. If you're a great baseball town, you support the team you have. Otherwise, you're bandwagon/fair weather.

I don't think it's that simple... why should fans pay Major League prices to see glorified AAA teams essentially job out to clubs whose owners are actually making an effort to win a pennant? It's one thing to call out a city who won't support a club after one or two bad years, but when teams are irrelevant for as long as the O's an Royals have been, the blame should be put squarely on its management.

[The_Admiral]

I understand why KC and Baltimore can't draw 30,000 a night for terrible baseball, but I have never believed and cannot believe in the so-called constructive value of not going to games. It does not "send a message," it does not "demand a winner." All it does it give the team less revenue to work with. Teams get better because of organizational changes beyond our control. It feels good to think that we can choke out our favorite teams into spending the money that we're not giving them, but it's all drafting/development, really. The Rays were bad, so nobody went to the games. Then they got really bad. Nobody went to their games. Then the team was sold to people that weren't complete idiots who invested in development while inheriting years of high drafting from all that sucking. Still, nobody went to their games. Then they got really good and became a ballplayer factory. Nobody goes to their games.

[IceCap]

I understand why KC and Baltimore can't draw 30,000 a night for terrible baseball, but I have never believed and cannot believe in the so-called constructive value of not going to games.

Indeed. Ask Thrashers fans how that worked out.

[crashcarson15]

The Phillies sold out every game last year (technically they were around 105% capacity) and their number is 0.59 because the metro area has over 6M people. It's really a worthless number.

Yeah, Philly is behind Cleveland in this set of data. Which by all accounts is nowhere close to being true.

FWIW, The Halos are drawing pretty damn well this year.

[Lights Out]

Or Hornets fans in Charlotte, for that matter.

[Gothamite]

I understand why KC and Baltimore can't draw 30,000 a night for terrible baseball, but I have never believed and cannot believe in the so-called constructive value of not going to games. It does not "send a message," it does not "demand a winner." All it does it give the team less revenue to work with. Teams get better because of organizational changes beyond our control. It feels good to think that we can choke out our favorite teams into spending the money that we're not giving them, but it's all drafting/development, really. The Rays were bad, so nobody went to the games. Then they got really bad. Nobody went to their games. Then the team was sold to people that weren't complete idiots who invested in development while inheriting years of high drafting from all that sucking. Still, nobody went to their games. Then they got really good and became a ballplayer factory. Nobody goes to their games.

I don't know if the Rays are a very good example, since there's no evidence at all of Tampa Bay being a good baseball area.

I get your point, though. It's a tricky subject - the only thing fans can do is withdraw their financial support from a club, which only serves to hurt the club's ability to climb out of the hole.

[epper]

I know there's been a lot of bickering in this thread about St. Louis, but of all the cities I have personally attended a game in, St. Louis had the best fans. Period. Unbiased point of view here.

I wish I could say Toronto was still a great baseball town (it was from the Mid-80's up until the strike), but as of right now it's in pretty bad shape.

I was very impressed by the fans in Pittsburgh a couple weeks ago. They love their team, everyone is decked out in black & yellow, awesome atmosphere all around.

Cleveland....not so much. Only 21,000 at the game I was at 2 Sundays ago. A gorgeous afternoon to see a first place team, and a whole lot of them left by the 6th inning when the game was only 6-0. I know this is a small sample size but a team that's been in 1st place for the entire year, and has a "seasoned" fan base (that is, multiple generations with a lot of winning in the not-too-distant past) and a gorgeous ballpark should be filling that stadium every night.

[north dakota]

I went to an Indians vs. Red Sox game in Cleveland earlier this year and there was barely anyone there. I'm pretty sure the stadium was under 25% full. Most of the people there were Red Sox fans too. They even gave away two free tickets to any game in May if you spent more than $30 in the team store.

[illwauk]

I understand why KC and Baltimore can't draw 30,000 a night for terrible baseball, but I have never believed and cannot believe in the so-called constructive value of not going to games. It does not "send a message," it does not "demand a winner." All it does it give the team less revenue to work with. Teams get better because of organizational changes beyond our control. It feels good to think that we can choke out our favorite teams into spending the money that we're not giving them, but it's all drafting/development, really.

It's not necessarily about "sending a message" though. What business of any type can reasonably expect to attract repeat customers when they give the impression that they don't care about the quality of product they're putting out? I know we like to think of sports fans as fanatics who live and die by their teams success, but most of us have other interests and therefore other ways to spend our money.

[Gothamite]

True, but giving them less revenue won't help them spend more money or spend it more wisely.

There's no easy answer. I used to read articles about how the Packers were disadvantaged by the massive fan support, because the team had no real incentive to win, they sold the same number of tickets if they won 4 games or 14 or some such nonsense.

[The_Admiral]

That's what they say about the Cubs and Maple Leafs, too.

I don't think the Packers are disadvantaged as long as they have competent management (again, this stuff is all above us) that intends to win, because their fan support can ballast them through rebuilds that teams like the Rams and Jaguars can't survive. Of course, we haven't really seen this in action because the Packers have only had like two or three isolated sucky years (Ray Rhodes, 2005, and the "or three" is 2008 because they were just incredibly unlucky) in the Favre/Rodgers eras, but I guess even with those there was enough patience from the fans to see the rebuilding through. If the Packers didn't have smart people in charge, they'd be the Bears.

[McCall]

It may be understandable why fans don't go to see bad teams, but you can't rate them up there with cities who's fans are consistently attending games in the high numbers, win or lose? It does in fact affect the discussion. They may still be baseball cities, but they don't rate up there with the ones who fans are regulars at ALL games. That's what makes THOSE cities the best baseball cities.

[McCall]

I know there's been a lot of bickering in this thread about St. Louis, but of all the cities I have personally attended a game in, St. Louis had the best fans. Period. Unbiased point of view here.

I was very impressed by the fans in Pittsburgh a couple weeks ago. They love their team, everyone is decked out in black & yellow, awesome atmosphere all around.

Pittsburgh's kind of a sad story. They were one of the best baseball towns until the massive losing hit. They're finally drawing now, which is awesome for a team with such a great history and one of the ballparks as well, but that lack of attendance for so long kind of drops them down the list some.

[BBTV]

I know there's been a lot of bickering in this thread about St. Louis, but of all the cities I have personally attended a game in, St. Louis had the best fans. Period. Unbiased point of view here.

I was very impressed by the fans in Pittsburgh a couple weeks ago. They love their team, everyone is decked out in black & yellow, awesome atmosphere all around.

Pittsburgh's kind of a sad story. They were one of the best baseball towns until the massive losing hit. They're finally drawing now, which is awesome for a team with such a great history and one of the ballparks as well, but that lack of attendance for so long kind of drops them down the list some.

Pittsburgh didn't sell out NLCS games in '91 and '92. Granted, it was a large stadium in a small market, but it's really not in the economic or population realm that is typically thought of when discussing major-league sports in 2011. I am glad to see the Pirates doing well though, as I have a lot of great memories from both 3 rivers and PNC (including sneaking in to the PNC construction site and getting a BJ on what is now the pitchers mound. Oh, college.)

And packing a stadium when the team sucks doesn't make anyone a great fan. "Suffering" isn't a badge of honor or anything. If the Phillies are 20 games out of first, and it's summer in Philadelphia, am I going to buy a $30 ticket to see the team just for the "love of the game" or am I going to go to the shore? I get that it's fun to go with your buddies, and it's a bonding experience and all that, and that's cool - I get it. Really. But don't act like you're watching crappy baseball and "scouting" the young crappy players, or just waiting for a perfect 6-4-3 DP to cheer for because you "know the game" so well. It's not being a good fan - it's having nothing better to do. All this chest thumping about being great fans is sickening - if you need a label like that to feel a sense of pride, then you should give serious thought to just ending it, because it's clear that you're missing something big in your life.

[McCall]

I know there's been a lot of bickering in this thread about St. Louis, but of all the cities I have personally attended a game in, St. Louis had the best fans. Period. Unbiased point of view here.

I was very impressed by the fans in Pittsburgh a couple weeks ago. They love their team, everyone is decked out in black & yellow, awesome atmosphere all around.

Pittsburgh's kind of a sad story. They were one of the best baseball towns until the massive losing hit. They're finally drawing now, which is awesome for a team with such a great history and one of the ballparks as well, but that lack of attendance for so long kind of drops them down the list some.

Pittsburgh didn't sell out NLCS games in '91 and '92. Granted, it was a large stadium in a small market, but it's really not in the economic or population realm that is typically thought of when discussing major-league sports in 2011. I am glad to see the Pirates doing well though, as I have a lot of great memories from both 3 rivers and PNC (including sneaking in to the PNC construction site and getting a BJ on what is now the pitchers mound. Oh, college.)

And packing a stadium when the team sucks doesn't make anyone a great fan. "Suffering" isn't a badge of honor or anything. If the Phillies are 20 games out of first, and it's summer in Philadelphia, am I going to buy a $30 ticket to see the team just for the "love of the game" or am I going to go to the shore? I get that it's fun to go with your buddies, and it's a bonding experience and all that, and that's cool - I get it. Really. But don't act like you're watching crappy baseball and "scouting" the young crappy players, or just waiting for a perfect 6-4-3 DP to cheer for because you "know the game" so well. It's not being a good fan - it's having nothing better to do. All this chest thumping about being great fans is sickening - if you need a label like that to feel a sense of pride, then you should give serious thought to just ending it, because it's clear that you're missing something big in your life.

Mr. Sunshine strikes again.

[The_Admiral]

If the Phillies are 20 games out of first, and it's summer in Philadelphia, am I going to buy a $30 ticket to see the team just for the "love of the game" or am I going to go to the shore?

Well, if they're that bad, you can probably get pretty good seats for $30, and even a crappy baseball team can still give you a good game. I get your point, of course, and I'm duly impressed with getting a blowjob in a stadium, but if you're a big baseball fan, who's to say you can't derive enjoyment from a bad team? What do I know; I don't even derive enjoyment from good teams.

I guess what I'm saying is go to games if you want to, but don't bitch that they're not winning in exchange for showing up, and definitely don't bitch that you won't show up until they do win.