Attendance Update: We Don't Suck
There's been a lot said these past couple days about the Rays' attendance so far this year, most of it negative. And rightly so: since we've last had an attendance update here, the Rays' attendance has dipped from an average of around 27K per game to around 22K per game. Personally, I was expecting our attendance to remain around the 25-27K mark so when I first noticed the drop-off, I was just as concerned as Matt Silverman. For a team that just just made it to the World Series last year, an average attendance under 25K is rather ridiculous.
But that's simply our first impression and it'd be rather naive to simply stop our analysis there. Yes, 22K seems really low, but what really matters is how our final attendance numbers look at the end of the year. Is there any reason to believe our average attendance will go up by the end of the year? Also, is 22K really all that bad?
As we've reviewed in my past posts, attendance depends on two main variables: day of the week and opponent faced. Could it be that during this first part of the season, we had an inordinate amount of middle of the week home games versus less than stellar opponents? If this were the case, we could expect the Rays' attendance to increase from this point forward even without a change in fan behavior. Let's look at how we've done so far:
|
# |
Avg |
|
|
Mon-Thurs = |
20 |
18044 |
|
Fri-Sat = |
15 |
28658 |
Going forward, we've got 45 more home games with 21 of them during the middle of the week and 24 of them on weekends. If the averages remain the same, that increase in weekend games would raise our current average attendance from 22.5K to 23.2K. Okay, so that's not a huge difference, but what about competitiveness? So far, we've only had one home series against the Yankees (3 games) and one against the Red Sox (4 games). Going forward, we're scheduled to have two series against the Yankees (6 games) and two against the Red Sox (5 games), the majority of which are scheduled during the middle of the week. I expect these series to raise the 18K weekday average attendance, although by how much is tough to tell.
Also, overall the Rays are facing slightly more competitive teams during the second half of the year. In order to create an off-the-cuff measure of competitiveness, I ranked the Rays' opponents for each home game by their current PECOTA rankings. For instance, the Red Sox have the best record in the AL, so they received a ranking of 1, while the Royals received a ranking of 13 (I discounted the Rays). I then averaged all of these together to get a general idea of how competitive these halfs of the schedule are. While the difference isn't huge, the Rays' opponents averaged a 7.9 up to this point in the season, while they average a 6.7 for the remainder of the season. While these numbers are obviously tough to quantify, I think we can assume that the Rays will draw more as the season wears on, especially if they are in the race for a playoff spot until late.
So now after taking scheduling into account, it appears like the Rays should average in the range of 24K per game (plus/minus 1K, though more likely plus) by the end of the season. Like RJ has said countless times, when in doubt: regression, regression, regression. However, I think we can all agree that 24K is still far from ideal. Many people were hoping for fans to turn out for games as much as they did during the Rays' inaugural season. While the current economic state of the country tempered those expectations somewhat, I don't think anyone figured that the Rays would only average 24K per game. Then again, human perceptions and expectations can be wildly off at times. Bud Selig did warn at the beginning of the season that attendance could be down 17-20% across the league this year. If this were the case with the Rays, a 24K per game average would be more like 28-29K in a normal economy. With this in mind, I decided to take a look at how badly the economy is hitting MLB attendance figures.
If you look at this spreadsheet, you'll notice that only 6 out of the 30 major league teams have experienced a growth in attendance so far this year. The Rays are one of these six, despite the fact that the Tampa Bay-St. Pete metropolitan area has an unemployment rate of 10.1%. In fact, the Tampa Bay-St. Pete metropolitan area is tied for the second largest unemployment rate of any metropolitan area supporting a major league baseball team (tied with Los Angeles, trailing only Detroit). Major league baseball is averaging an 8% decrease in attendance, but that does not take into account potential fluctuations in attendance figures that teams would have otherwise experienced, like an increase in attendance for teams with new stadiums, teams making the playoffs, etc.
So putting the Rays attendance figures in context, it is rather incredible that the Rays have increased attendance at all this season. If the Rays were to finish with an average attendance of 24K, that would be an increase of 8%. While not the giant increase the Rays were expecting, it would still be an impressive figure considering the circumstances. The only problem is that no matter how impressive 24K per game may actually be in this climate, it's still most likely not enough to pay for the Rays' large increases in payroll.
Or in other words, we've got a Good-Bad situation on our hands. Good: the Tampa Bay-St. Pete area doesn't suck! Bad: Where the heck is our franchise going to get money?
118 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
No excuse for less than 60K showing up this week
v the Phillies. Even the lowly Indians-Pirates series, a match up of two pathetic teams drew similar or better numbers (i haven’t checked last night yet)
One can only imagine what a mid week series v the Jats will bring. Remember we thought so much of them and TEX as draws we scheduled series at Disney World for them
Honestly Steve you are all over the map here
In your title you say we don’t suck. Then you go back and forth and end with 24k (if that happens, and your assumption is that we stay in the race) being impressive yet not good enough.
I’m not sure how you slice it but 24k for the AL Champions in another competitive season is horrible. Downright pathetic.
Sure we have a year over year increase. But do you have evidence that same increase will occur in 2010? And 2011? And 2012? Cause we will need that in order to keep the team.
FYI we are not even average 2,000 more fans per game this year once we account for the Disney games. This is also compring the expectations of a horrible season at the start of last year to the AL Champions this year. P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C
Confounding Issues
The research may have a feel of being “all over the map” yet I believe the point is that you cannot pinpoint one reason why the attendance is “horrible.” To be one of the six franchises that has seen an increase in attendance is impressive, especially given the economic times (see our unemployment rate). While we might not be satisfied with this slight increase, it is a start to an improvement. The average fan (bandwagon fan) is not going to be convinced overnight—we built a solid foundation for a fanbase with our success last year, and with a string of continued success, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a steady increase. I realize there is no way to prove it, but I feel the point of the article is to say that there are so many confounding factors in the attendance issues that we shouldn’t be so quick to blame the Tampa Bay area.
Comparing increases and decreases is not the way to go
We were the worst drawing team in the majors since we’ve made it big time (or close to it). Remember so far we are comparing home games from last year prior to any expectation changes. An increase from bein the worst to slightly better than the worst isn’t exactly something to be proud of.
Also the economy is going to hit the teams with a seasoned fan base quite a bit harder than a team with virtually no fan base.
No one is doubting that our attendance would be better if the economy was stronger. However I’d argue that it would help other teams even more (or at least equal), and we would still be well below league average.
Also the economy is going to hit the teams with a seasoned fan base quite a bit harder than a team with virtually no fan base.
This seems counter-intuitive.
Rays Win!
by Sandy Kazmir on Jun 26, 2009 9:15 AM EDT up reply actions
If you have more fans....
Yes you will have more impacted but you also have more people who aren’t impacted and who can “fill in” for those.
Also, if you have a seasoned fan base then going to games is more of a “necessity” to them than it is something they can scratch from their budget. A seasoned fan base has more folks who are likely to cut costs in other ways in order to afford to go to the game.
Whereas if you have virtually no fan base, or a weak fan base, then you have more people who went to the games as a luxury or something to do that can easily scratch that line item from their budget.
I understand your point
I think its valid except for the fill in portion. For certain teams that sell out you have a point. However teams that average say 30k are in a different boat. I think the bottom line will be impacted more for a team that expected 30k than a team that expected 20k. A team like Boston probably won’t feel the impact at all.
The Rays, knowing full well how non Yankee, Sox mid week games draw
should have never put the ‘prime’ price tag on this series
Prime is all in the buyer’s eyes, not what we’re told it should be
Yeah that was a miscalculation
I think the big picture is what is really scaring the ownership group. The Phillies series is just a piece of that. Our attendance (controlling for the Disney games) is barely up. At this point there is literally nothing more they can do.
The Rays are one of the cheapest tickets in MLB. You can go to a Rays game cheaper than virtually any other pro-sports game in America.
They renovated the Trop
They put a winning team on the field
That is all they can do. If after all of that they are still drawing 7 to 8k less than league average then you have to question the viability of the market. Perhaps it is just the stadium and the location of the stadium. But that is a hell of a risk to build a new stadium in an area that hasn’t shown support.
Remember fans have not support this team since inception.
So you're going to go into this again?
I’ve heard this same tired argument for 4 days in a row now.
Rays Win!
by Sandy Kazmir on Jun 26, 2009 9:16 AM EDT up reply actions
Then we might as well delete this entire thread
Everything said here has already been said. I fail to see your point quite a few times in other threads.
I deleted a portion of that last sentence without fixing it. So just disregard that part
Either way everything has already been said in any one of the attendance/stadium threads over the past few days.
That was my point
Beating a dead horse isn’t much fun. Wherever you stand on the issue, most of it has been covered. I would like to see an estimate on how much RS is going to be down this year.
Rays Win!
by Sandy Kazmir on Jun 26, 2009 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree
But don’t make it seem like I started this thread. I just merely commented.
You did take the time to say that Steve shouldn't have wasted all of our times creating this and that
attendance was pathetic. If you don’t want to stir up a hornet’s nest, then why spray gasoline on it.
Rays Win!
by Sandy Kazmir on Jun 26, 2009 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions
When did I say he wasted our time?
I said he was very inconsistent with his evaluation. And he was. I never once said he wasted our time.
And also he took the time to make the post so I feel he deserves replies to it. Talking about attendance is always going to “stir up the hornets nest” mainly because our attendance is that bad. It is simply something that cannot be sugar coated.
Not in so many words, but I got the impression that you were trying to tear his posters off the wall
after he spent all night putting them up. If you catch my meaning. We have ran the gambit on this topic over the last few days, hearing multiple people talk about stadium (re)location, how the “problem” is smoke and mirrors, many other things, but the one consistency I’ve noticed is that your opinion is all that you want to hear. Who would want to have a dialogue with that? Clearly, I am, but I’m also pretty thick and a tad hungover and ahead on a project.
Rays Win!
by Sandy Kazmir on Jun 26, 2009 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Unfortunately your opinion and your impression is completly wrong
I am one of the easiest people to persuade if conclusions are based upon strong data. Sometimes on this blog posters have strong statistical evidence and many times they just post a bunch of facts posing as statistical evidence. I’m all for fun facts. Steves post is mainly just the fun facts. Definitely interesting and good to know. He even admits so given his conclusions.
Yeah, it's not an in depth statistical analysis of the situation...I'll freely admit that
To do so would involve economic analysis and some ridiculously complex regressions, which is simply beyond me. This is a really confusing issue that has so many variables and can’t be boiled down to any one thing. So yeah, you can look at my post as a bunch of fun facts. At the same time, those fun facts are also a couple of the main variables that will affect attendance. I tried to place a weight on them when I could, but mostly I tried to either go with the status quo or be conservative in my estimates.
And you’ll notice that despite all the recession data I put out there, I tried not to say, “The recession is knocking the Rays’ attendance down X amount” because that’s impossible for me to say from the data I have. At the same time, we can be certain that it is knocking it back and when looking at the league in general, we can get a better idea of how much maybe. Anyway, the post was mainly meant to point out variables that affect attendance that people may be looking over or underestimating when seeing the 22.5K attendance figure.
"I never threw an illegal pitch. The trouble is, once in a while I toss one that ain't never been seen by this generation." - Satchel Paige
by Steve Slowinski on Jun 26, 2009 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Your post was fine
It was informative for sure.
IMO comparing year over year attendance isn’t too useful until we get later in the year. The most telling will be how we do last half of ’09 (especially the last third) compared to the last half of ’08.
Again IMO I think early ’08 to early ’09 gives us a picture on what we gained from the increased expectations and the better team as a whole. Late ’08 to late ’09 will show us real year over year attendance growth. That growth will give us more predictive power for 2010.
Do you really think the price increase detered that many fans?
The prime pricing is basically 150% the normal price (give or take, that’s the easiest multiplier to use).
As a pure measure of ticket revenue, I don’t think the Rays are bringing in 10,000 or even 5,000 more fans by using normal pricing. Let’s say the Rays have sold 12,000 season tickets, meaning about 7,000 people purchased tickets for the Phillies games. Do you think an additional 3,500 would have showed up if the tickets were normal pricing? I don’t think the attendance is as price sensitive as some on here.
Put it this way 'it didn't help'
Actually, instead of hiking ticket prices they should have done some type of promos, $1 hot dogs, buy one 1/2 off, anything to get people used to going to mid week ball games
But why?
If attendance isn’t price sensitive, why not charge the most they can without affecting attendance. If a price decrease will not lead to an increase in attendance, why lower the price?
I’ve never understood the argument about attendance… Do we want more fans to be there so the Rays FO makes more money? What other reason do we care so much about fans being at games?
If it’s about money, they are making more money by having more Prime games, especially against opponents that draw from their own separate fan bases (Cubs, Phillies, Red Sox, etc). Make the visiting teams fans pay more to make up for the lack of Rays fans attending the games.
Everybody loves a 'deal'
Look at other entertainment venues. Baseball is strictly entertainment.
imo, the one thing this team needs is a better marketing department.
In CLE, during the months of APR and MAY they have a deal where if you bring in a Pepsi can you get a 1/2 off ticket
Again, a stadium is like a cruise ship, why let it sail half empty, even if you fill it at less full price?
The difference is the cruise ship makes a lot of money once you are onboard...
The Rays lease out space and deals to vendors. They don’t benefit as much once you are in as something like a cruise ship or movie theater would.
It looks like the organization and marketing department has decided that weekend games are the most important to them. All their promos are done on the weekends, including giveaways and concerts. They also put a huge focus on Sunday as family day. If they are intent on using the weekends to cultivate the fan base, why even bother giving deals on weekdays that wouldn’t impact the bottom line (or would do so negatively). It just doesn’t make financial since, and that is what we’re talking about right? The Rays ownership making more money?
I do agree with you with price sensitivity
Actually I’d say the Rays make quite a bit of money from fans once they are at the game.
In the perfect world you sell as many tickets as you can at normal price and then give away the rest. That would maximize your revenues. However you cannot do that since giving away the tickets creates a major moral hazard.
So then the solution would be to lower the prices. But I think you are right on about the sensitivity. I’m sure the FO did their research and this is the price that maximizes revenues.
Yep, if you can't get them at the game
they can’t buy a $7 beer or a $4 hot dog or $20 cap
Get em in
The team doesn't make money much money off that cap and dog...
The team does not see as much of the concession revenue as they do the ticket revenue. It isn’t a fill the stadium at all cost strategy as Matthan said above…
Most of the vendors are independent from the actual Rays organization (maybe all). The Rays aren’t making as much inside as most probably think. They don’t run the team store (their goes the cap) and don’t run any concessions. I don’t have hard figures on the leasing agreements with the vendors, but I’d imagine the variable costs aren’t as high as generally thought.
Something is better than nothing
and just think, they might even come back
8% is sustainable
I would be more worried if attendance was up 45%, once we start losing, all those people are gone.
Rays Win!
by Sandy Kazmir on Jun 26, 2009 9:04 AM EDT up reply actions
Perhaps...as long as they keep winning
How long can they keep winning with a far below league average attendance mark?
I'm saying the Rays cannot sustain this salary and definitely not the needed future increases
If attendance does not pick up dramatically. They’d have to go with a major new youth movement. Perhaps it would pan out the way this one did….but maybe it wouldn’t.
This isn't true...
I’d imagine that the difference in media revenue this year more than makes up for any lack of attendance. The Rays went from ION in Tampa to Sunshine Network across the state. They’ve picked up radio stations across the state.
Attendance doesn’t matter as much as we like to think. The Rays are making plenty of money on other forms of media to make up for whatever attendance problems they are perceived to have.
And as stated above, if it’s about the money then we shouldn’t look at attendance as much as ticket revenue. I’d imagine the Rays are making significantly more ticket revenue this year based on price increases, additional prime games, and implementing marquee game pricing.
Only 5 teams have a lower payroll than us.
We don’t need to draw league average to cover that. Like I said yesterday, if Revenue Sharing is going to decrease, then gate becomes that much more important, but with our payroll so low, and especially going forward, we have more flexibility than other teams. Do you see Toronto adding payroll after this year?
Rays Win!
by Sandy Kazmir on Jun 26, 2009 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions
I see the average salary decreasing
However with a young team our payroll has to naturally increase to keep this nucleus. No matter what we won’t be able to keep the whole nucleus, but the lower the attendance the less we get to keep. The less we keep the more uncertain W/Ls will be in the future.
Even if Toronto and the other teams ahead of us cut payroll slightly it will still be way above ours. On average their players will have far more certain performance whereas we will be relying on a smaller portion of our nucleus and the unpredictability of call ups.
They're paying huge money to Vernon Wells and Alex Rios
Their payroll is chock full of empty calories that aren’t easily cut out. The same is all around the league. Your payroll is a poor indicator of your on-field talent. It can be a great indicator of the relative strength of your GM, however.
Rays Win!
by Sandy Kazmir on Jun 26, 2009 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't see your point
Every single one of our players are going to be getting more expensive. We either pay them or replace them with an unproven commodity. If you want the same certainty of success our payroll must increases substantially over time. If payroll has to decrease from this level then we have to replace our proven commodities with unproven commodities. Sure Deezy, Hughes, Jaso, Davis, and Hellickson may produce similar results, but they may also totally bomb out resulting in more Ls and lower attendance and even lower payroll.
I’m not doubting Friedman. It is just insane to think he can have sustainable success at this level of payroll forever. And given our attendance payroll will probably have to decrease.
Losing Chadford and Percy after this year covers arb costs nearly completely
You make it sound like we have a team of monkeys making decisions by pulling paper out of a hat. It isn’t a zero sum game where attendance and payroll move in perfectly aligned directions due to other money coming in. Due to the economy, I imagine there is a fair amount of fans that would prefer to stay at home and watch the game on their couch drinking dollar beers and spending 3 bucks to make a cheeseburger. If ratings go up enough, perhaps a bidding war ensues, or the Rays set up their own Rays network down the road, teaming up with The Bucs, Magic, and Bolts. This adds considerably more money. Attendance isn’t the end all, be all.
Rays Win!
by Sandy Kazmir on Jun 26, 2009 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions
Ownership set up payroll projections based upon expected revenue
If the expected revenue changes then payroll is almost certainly going to change. Like you said there are many sources of revenues. Perhaps the decrease in expected attendance revenue is offset somewhere by an increase in expected revenue elsewhere? If so then we’d expect the payroll expectation to be the same.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Friedman. I think he will do an excellent job. The question is how much money does he have to work with. I have no doubt he will do a great job whether payroll is lower, equal, or more than this year. However a great job with a lower payroll is going to result in less wins than a great job with a higher payroll.
I don’t want to blame anyone. It is just simple business. If revenues don’t meet expectations then something has to give…and usually that would be cost (in this case payroll).
Another thing we have failed to mention is the fact that sponsors wouldn't touch the
Trop or the Rays for years. You might as well have put a contaminated sticker on the doors. Now that they are a draw, sponsors should be lining up to associate with our brand name. I’ve seen this in small doses as far as new sponsors in and around the Trop. What sucks is that marketing budgets have been slashed everywhere thanks to this economic environment, but since demand for signage, among other marketing avenues, was initially so low, I have to think that buying ad space at the Trop is relatively cheap and that they are willing to work with companies to bring large accounts in. This is essentially free money handed to the organization.
Rays Win!
by Sandy Kazmir on Jun 26, 2009 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree, but wouldn't the Rays have already projected that revenue into their budget?
If anything that would be an unexpected change downward.
I don't think many teams have higher "certain performances"
I think aging veterans are a little more volatile than players with 2/3 years of performance. The only players who will be fairly new next year are Davis, Perez, Joyce, and maybe Price. I think Joyce is a fairly known commodity at this point and both Davis and Perez will be far from integral parts.
Thats the point though
BJ, CC, Pena, Navi, Kaz etc they are all going to get more expensive. We would be replacing them with Deezy, Davis, Jaso etc. The most unproven of all commodities.
I’m not saying we are going to get rid of them all next year. However given our poor attendance give what they were projecting we will ahve to get rid of more of our nucleus over time than what we thought. This would result in more of those unproven commodities being an integral part of the time.
When are you planning on replacing them?
I think you’re exaggerating the impact of attendance revenues. Teams make their money off of media first, attendance second. As long as people are watching games then the Rays will be fine. I wouldn’t worry about the impact of attendance on payroll, it won’t be that significant.
The issues regarding the core players would matter whether they had great attendance or not.
I'm basing this on some comments made by the FO
But either way payroll projections are based upon expected revenues. If a decrease in attendance doesn’t hurt expected revenues that much then we don’t have anything to worry about. If it does then we have a lot to worry about.
I'm searching for hard numbers...
One article said most teams make 40% of revenues from attendance and 40% from media. I think that skews a lot more to media for baseball and football.
It's a process.
Prior to last year season tickets were virtually non-existent. Then they found a way to get people signed up last year with the playoffs. Of that group many will get upgraded packages, provided they had a good experience. Their word of mouth will go to others, or perhaps they brought a friend to a game who goes out and gets them. The point is, if you got to a few games, you won’t go to less the following year. It is too much fun in the Trop, it’s affordable, the A/C is worth the price of admission post-July, and oh yeah the team is pretty dang fun to watch as well. Like I said, give me 8% every year since that is reasonable. We don’t want to be Boston south as far as a ton of fair weather fans jumping on and we are happy as long as they bring cash. At least, I don’t want that.
Rays Win!
by Sandy Kazmir on Jun 26, 2009 9:21 AM EDT up reply actions
I use it on a daily basis. Most things arem, you cannot expect exceptional results overnight
If that is what you get then don’t be surprised when they turn the other way just as fast at some point.
Rays Win!
by Sandy Kazmir on Jun 26, 2009 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree
Expecting 30,000 was a bit too high, but less than 2,000 for games at the Trop? I wonder if any other WS teams (other than full capacity teams) have had such small increases. The only one I can think of would be the Marlins for obvious reasons
If we could get an 8% increase every year I think ownership would love that
I just don’t see how that is possible. The increases should most definitely decrease over time. And frankly we cannot be much more successful than last year. Payroll expectations has to be decreased due to revenue decreasing. Odds are we’ve already reached our pinnacle of success in this time frame.
I just want the team to stay in the area. At this point I think the chances of them eventually moving are increasing dramatically.
So we've gone from attendance going up, to attendance going up but not at a great rate
to attendance is up but it isn’t good enough, to attendance is up but we have to slash payroll, to attendance is up but the window is close, sell the team, it was fun while it lasted. It must be tough living in your world of no hope or sunshine.
Rays Win!
by Sandy Kazmir on Jun 26, 2009 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions
Huh?
FYI
Founded in 2005. DRaysBay is home to “progressive statistical analysis and reasoned argument.”
No need to stoop to that level. If you can’t have rational discourse then perhaps you should hold your tongue until you can?
Huh?
Odds are we’ve already reached our pinnacle of success in this time frame. So this is rational?
Rays Win!
by Sandy Kazmir on Jun 26, 2009 10:17 AM EDT up reply actions
So you'd give me even odds that the Rays win the world series in the next few years?
Because I hate to break it to you it certainly is not 50:50. It is called being realistic. We certainly have a shot at winning the world series over the next few years, but it is doubtful that we do.
I'm not sure how well thought out my point was on that issue
If so I apologize. My point was about success and attendance and how it is linked in this area, and that basically the chances of the Rays having more success than they did last year in the coming years is not that great.
You could say the same for the Red Sox and every other team because the past is known
and the future isn’t.
Rays Win!
by Sandy Kazmir on Jun 26, 2009 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions
The odds aren't 50:50 for the Yankees with the highest payroll in the league.
This would be a stupid bet to make for any team. Getting to the playoffs and being competitive are attainable goals and fun enough for me to watch.
Rays Win!
by Sandy Kazmir on Jun 26, 2009 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions
The people on draysbay are different than the general public
You can see it already this year. The public somehow thinks this year is a failure compared to last year. If they are expecting to somehow equal or trump last year then they are in for a rude awakening. Like you said its most likely not going to happen. So if thats what will cause them to come to the ballpark then our attendance will suffer, or fail to meet expectations, because of it.
Basically it comes down to this
If we get an 8% increase off of an AL Pennant what would the increase be off of a 3rd place barely missed the WC year?
But it's an 8% increase with a crappy economy.
That’s potentially hiding a lot of the growth. If not for winning last year, do we really think our attendance would be remaining stable this year? It’d probably be decreasing.
"I never threw an illegal pitch. The trouble is, once in a while I toss one that ain't never been seen by this generation." - Satchel Paige
by Steve Slowinski on Jun 26, 2009 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree it would be higher
I think the core of my point is 8% off of such a low attendance figure it begin with isn’t good enough. The end result is still very low attendance and not nearly good enough for sustainable success. In order for us to get where we need to be we have to duplicate this increase over the next few years, and frankly IMO that will be very difficult to do.
How much is gained by new season ticket buyers that got 10 games in 08, maybe bumped to 20
for 2009 and then go for 81 next season? You get a better public persona by being competitive year over year, than if we had won the WS. If we had won last year and attendance was up 25% this year, where would your guess for 2010’s attendance be?
Rays Win!
by Sandy Kazmir on Jun 26, 2009 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions
Well it would depend on how the 25% is broken down in terms of different portions of the season
But honestly probably not much different in terms of increase than we will see in 2009 to 2010.
I do agree year over year success is the best way to build a fanbase. The problem is without a fanbase it is near impossible to have year over year success for a long enough period.
I still don't understand this comment...
How does the fanbase hurt year over year success? It doesn’t make sense…
I suppose you can argue that teams with high attendance numbers spend more money, but the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox get to spend more money because they have amazing TV revenues.
The reason the Rays may decline has a lot more to do with their stars becoming too expensive than due to attendance.
The number one excuse for not attending-winning
Now that the Rays are winning they can build a fanbase. However if their attendance does not pick up fast enough they will not be able to keep their stars. The Rays have put out basic and simple payroll projections based upon expected revenue. If the expected revenue is down (for whatever reason), then almost certainly payroll will have to decrease relative to their projection. A lower payroll will mean less success as it means we would be replacing one of our “stars” with probably a rookie.
For the Rays revenues and payroll go hand and hand. Payroll and winning will also go fairly hand in hand. If the Rays are unable to increase the payroll at the rate of arbs then our w/l will reflect that.
We'll be able to cover arbs next year with just Percy and Chadford's expiring contracts
Maybe not Garza, but we can cover everyone else and most of Matty off of 2 contracts. Finding a taker for Wheels would be nice as well.
Rays Win!
by Sandy Kazmir on Jun 26, 2009 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions
My research was a bit all over the places, yeah
I think I tried to shove too much stuff into one post, so it came out seeming really full of too much stuff. But here are the basic points:
1. All remaining neutral and the same as things are going right now, we’ll end up averaging about 24K per game this year.
2. That the 24K isn’t actually a bad thing. It would actually be a rather impressive number considering the economy. I thought it was pathetic too at first, but to say so is ignoring the fact the economy has hit this area especially hard and that teams all over major league baseball are having major issues with attendance.
If it weren’t for the economy, I believe that 24K would be a heck of a lot higher, which I take as my evidence that this is sustainable in the long run. This team is going to have another winning season and be in the hunt for a playoff spot late for the second year in a row. Fans respond to winning, but they also respond highly favorably to continuous winning. Next season, with a potentially improving economy and 2 years of competitiveness under our belts, we should see all the growth that’s being hidden by the economy this year.
"I never threw an illegal pitch. The trouble is, once in a while I toss one that ain't never been seen by this generation." - Satchel Paige
by Steve Slowinski on Jun 26, 2009 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions
And the reason I went back and forth at the end about our attendance is because of precisely the point you're making: payroll
My opinion after looking at all this data is that the area is sustainable and can support a team, but our ownership group is just getting screwed over right now by a combination of bad circumstances. They need to increase attendance to continue having their increased payroll, but the economy is knocking that back quite substantially.
"I never threw an illegal pitch. The trouble is, once in a while I toss one that ain't never been seen by this generation." - Satchel Paige
by Steve Slowinski on Jun 26, 2009 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions
My conclusions aren't far off from yours
Looking at purely the increase and the state of MLB/Economy then it is a good thing. I wouldn’t say great since I’d expect a higher increase due to our success last year and our relatively low attendance figures to begin with. However even with the increase we are still way below what we need to be and that is truly the bottom line.
Thinking about Silverman's comment many times
and coupled with the location suggestions of the panel, i think he meant it, not as a threat to move from TB, but rather to say ’let’s get the hell out of St. Petersburg’
Yeah, I have them. You can also find them at Baseball-Reference.com
If you want a copy of my spreadsheet, let me know.
"I never threw an illegal pitch. The trouble is, once in a while I toss one that ain't never been seen by this generation." - Satchel Paige
by Steve Slowinski on Jun 26, 2009 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions
Just email me...it should be on my page if you click my name.
"I never threw an illegal pitch. The trouble is, once in a while I toss one that ain't never been seen by this generation." - Satchel Paige
by Steve Slowinski on Jun 26, 2009 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Make sure you control for the Disney games
Of course even besides the Disney games, as Steve pointed out, the samples are extremely mixed. You have different expectations, different “prime” number of games, and different weekday/weekend games. It is hard to draw a real strong conclusion on whether we are meeting expectations because of that.
Maybe I'm doing it wrong:
I have our attendance after home game 36 as follows:
2008 – 676,746 I will add 3×9,000 to account for disney (roughly difference between disney and last year’s average at this point to get 703,746.
For 2009 – 810,888. That is an increase of 15%
That increase will stabilize because last year attendance picked up at the end to push it up. If we are in another hunt and get the same pickup rate going down the stretch, we could actually see some pretty good numbers. (In my mind a 10-15% increase would be promising).
I think it would be better to look at the first X amount of Trop games in 08 with the first X amount of Trop games in 09 rather than adjusting the Disney games.
Although like you said attendance picked up the second half of last year somewhat. Are we going to draw that many people even if we aren’t in 1st place? That remains to be seen. My prediction is we draw less in the last 3rd of 2009 than we did in the last 3rd of 2008.
Makes the increase 10% on account of a series with the Marlins and Cubs having a larger than average draw for games 37,38,39
of over 31,000.
Our average Trop draw for Toronto was around 20,000. So I guess we can agree it is somewhere in the 10-15% range.
It's me! It's Stevie Jenowksi!
I wish we could get into a car crash right now. A motherfucking car crash. I wish we could crash right now and die and live in heaven together.
Kids
I’ve been a fan since the beginning…I’ve got 3 kids ages 10,8, and 3. Since the older two were three and one we started taking them to games. They enjoyed it, but with so few people there it was hard to get really EXCITED. Now, as last season progressed, and more people started showing up, and the building was louder and louder, they started to watch closer and get more interested in the actual game on the field.
The playoffs came, and my then 9 year old, started writing the team lineups for the Sawx and Rays on her homework, asking what the rotation was going to look like, who would I root for in the Series if we played the Phillies (I grew up in Philly and Grandpop was rooting hard for the Phils), etc. etc.
We’ve been to a dozen games this year, she’s brought some friends, the two older ones are learning to keep score.
My point is this stuff takes time, you don’t build a real fan base in one season, or half a season. It’s not like football, or basketball, where going to the games is “the thing to do”. Fans have to love it. I saw two kids fall in love with a baseball team last year and hopefully that will carry on for a lifetime.
I’m encouraged by the attendence improvement if not overjoyed.
by spidurfan on Jun 26, 2009 10:30 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Very good post
Excellent observation about “the thing to do”. I think that is where the stadium and location comes into play. A better stadium and better location can increase the atmosphere exponentially which would make it far more appealing to go independent of the team itself.
i wonder if anyone would show up to the saturday games if we didn't have some stupid concert afterward.
I've got something related to this.
Should be up today (if I can get the pictures sized right in the Post. It’s fighting me right now)
Sign lady must die.
by EminenceFront on Jun 26, 2009 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions
One thing to monitor...
Monitor the trend in % change over last year. In other words, what is our % increase in cumulative attendance as the season progresses. If you look at the first 10 games or so our attendance was about 60% higher than last year for obvious reasons. If you look at games 20-30, it had dropped to about 20% over last year and was increasing steadily (21% to 23%). Lately the trend is downward. At game 32 or so we had outgained last year by 17.4%, 33-15.7%, 34 – 13.7%, 35 – 11.3%, 36 – 9.3%. (Disney adjusted)
Small sample size, probably can’t get a forecast or a trend from it that is solid, but if this trend keeps up, in about 5 more home games we will dip below cumulative figures from the same point in time as last year. I just hope this isn’t an indication that we are “regressing” to last years numbers or worse.
I’m an optimist and I believe with the teams we play second half and a potential playoff push again things should end up better than last year.
I’ll be doing my part and getting to the games more often!
Itll get lower and lower
In fact my guess is the last 3rd of 2009 will have lower attendance than the last 3rd of 2008. The last half of 08 will probably equal the last half of 09.
My prediction is almost all of the gain year over year will be due to the increase in early 09 compared to early 08.
He's still sleeping
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
by FreeZorilla on Jun 26, 2009 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't really know that
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
by FreeZorilla on Jun 26, 2009 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions
Shhhh! RJ Anderson is watching!
He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.
about Royals great attendance uptick
obviously Greinke is a contributing factor, but the Royals were offering a buy 2 get 2 season ticket packages free in what would be the rays 3rd level at the trop, which i’m sure there season ticket holder fan base took advantage of which would at minimum double the number of season ticket holders in those sections and fan count (b/c I believe season ticket holders are counted regardless of attendance) on a nightly basis. Maybe the Rays could try something similar next year just to get people out to the games and build a larger future season ticket holder base.
Kaz/Shields/Garza/Sonny/Price/Davis/Hellickson-necessitate a drool cup or a 7 man rotation
by CubFanRaysaddict on Jun 26, 2009 11:43 AM EDT reply actions
They also had $1 hot dog promotions, t-shirt giveaways and a newly renovated stadium
Greinke had very little to do with it. I’m too lazy to find the link, but they broke this down on the SBN Royals site after people were bitching about attendance (shocker) when the Royals were in first early in the season.
Is baseball really this unpopular in Florida?
Are there really this many bandwagon fans who stop going to games once the Rays stop winning?
No matter how you sugar coat it, our attendance sucks
Any team that wins the AL / NL Pennant and makes it to the WS should draw at least 80-85% total capacity on average the next year. You can blame the economy, you can blame the day of the week, you can blame the competitiveness of the opposing teams, but guess what? Other teams are facing the same circumstances.
I would bet a good deal of money that every playoff team from last year has seen dramatic increases in attendance
ChiSox, Brewers, Phillies, Cubs (they’re always sold out anyways), Angels……
I really fail to see
why anyone is surprised by these attendance numbers. No matter how many times the phrase “you cant build a franchise overnight” is said, people still keep expecting our attendance to be up like 8-10,000 this year which is not realistic. Lets say we finish the year averaging 24K a game (which is what Steve reported) we are up almost 2,000, which is fine with me especially when you consider the economy. Lets say we make the playoffs or are damn close this year, you have to expect the attendance to go up around 2,000 again next year. SO when you look at the big picture, its very plausible that in a 5 year span this ownership group will have taken a team that was consistently the worst in the league and was averaging like 18K a night, to a proven winner averaging over 25-26K a game. I dont care how you put it, that is great progress, as good as anyone could have hoped for. I understand it is frustrating to think that we were the AL champs and we still average under 25K right now, but you have to step back and look at this issue as a whole. And when you do that, I think its fair to say that we have made unbelievable progress in a short amount of time and we should be very happy where we are.
by BJ the Bossman on Jun 26, 2009 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't think that's the issue
The problem is that this state is filled with transplant fans from other areas and these fans are holding on to old allegiances.
2009 Rays Baseball: God Damn It, Guys
Lets play that game...
Phillies = 42,254 – 43,785 (capacity) = + 1,531 (capacity)
Brewers = 37,882 – 37,705 = (-177)
Cubs = 40,743 – 39,821= (-922)
Dodgers = 46,056 – 42,869 = (-3,187)
White Sox = 30,877 – 25,070 = (- 5,807)
Red Sox = Basically Even
Angels = 41,194 – 40,960 (-234)
Rays = 22,259 – 22,524 = + 265
So I’ll take that bet…
This all is meaningless since it is far to early in the season to compare averages, but there really aren’t any dramatic increases besides the Phillies who are now at capacity. The White Sox and Dodgers both have seen a significant decrease and everyone else has been the same.
The problem is that increases and decreases are largely irrelevant
What matters is the total bottom line. The Angels would have had to have a 50% decline in attendance which lowering ticket prices in order to match our revenues from attendance
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
RD over and out.
by ReasonableDoubt on Jun 26, 2009 1:31 PM EDT reply actions
I think the other problem is that, WS rematch or not, the Phillies aren't exactly a huge road draw
Kinda like the Angels
2009 Rays Baseball: God Damn It, Guys
They should be in Tampa though.
First of all we have a large transplant population. They also have spring training and a FSL team in the Bay Area which does create more of a fan base for them. Combined with the fact that it is a World Series rematch and the summer, I can see why the team was projecting sell-out crowds or at least 30k+ for the games.
Tools Whore
The only thing I'm going to say about the Phillies series in this entire thread:
If these teams didn’t play each other in the World Series last year, would you have expected attendance of around 20k, or 12?
I can't wait until we trade him for a reliever.
Closer to 20
But then again expectations in this case are still not acceptable.






















