Attendance Analysis (Pt. 2): Expansion Teams
|
Creation |
|
|
1961 |
|
|
1961 |
|
|
1962 |
|
|
1962 |
|
|
1969 |
|
|
1969 |
|
|
1969 |
|
|
1969 |
|
|
1977 |
|
|
Jays |
1977 |
|
1993 |
|
|
1993 |
|
|
Devil Rays |
1998 |
|
1998 |
Using these 14 teams as our sample, let's look back and see how the Rays have compared with them over time. For all we know, maybe the majority of expansion teams suffer from low attendance for their first 10 seasons, until they've been in the area long enough to develop a fan base. Have there been any trends in the Att+ scores for these teams over time? Let's find out...
Overall Trends
First, the Rays have been around for 12 seasons, so here are the Att+ scores for all the expansion teams during their first 12 seasons (click link for larger view):

Initial Attendance for Expansion Franchises
Sadly there's no easy to notice trends within the data. Some teams start off with great attendances and decline, some start off with below-average attendances but end up above-average, and with others there is no discernable trend. That graph is a really poor way to try and view trends, though (waaay too cluttered and confusing), so here's the average Att+ of all the expansion teams during their first 12 seasons:

While there is a slight upward trend in attendance over this time period, the scores vary from year-to-year and the change is so small, it could be a result of random variation. At the most, it shows that teams have averaged a 5% increase in attendance over their initial 12 seasons. However, the most important point to draw from this graph is that there is no set pattern to how expansion teams typically draw. While some teams are like the Rays and start off with low attendances for an extended period of time, there are teams that don't follow that pattern at all. Some teams, like the Rockies, experience incredible success right out of the gate and other teams, like the Rangers, suffer for an extended period of time, but neither result can be called "typical".
Time Periods
While there aren't any trends in the data when considering all expansion teams, is it possible there are different trends depending upon the time period? Maybe comparing the Rays and Diamondbacks to a team created in the early 1960s is misleading, and teams from similar time periods experience similar trends in Att+ over their first 12 seasons.

Initial 12 Seasons Per Time Period
Woh! So that's certainly interesting. Teams formed in the 1990s averaged a much higher Att+ but ended up with a below-average Att+ over the course of 12 seasons, while teams formed in the 1960s started off slow but picked up steam as time went along. The curve for 1977 seems to be a conglomeration of the two trends (start strong, decline, and then pick up steam), although there are only two teams in that sample.
Conclusion
So there aren't any sweeping conclusions we can make about expansion teams in general, but there are differences in how fans have responded to expansion franchises during different time periods. It's tough to say why that's the case, though; maybe the earlier cities were larger and/or more receptive to baseball. My guess is that it's because baseball didn't have stiff competition from other sports in the 1960s. Football had just started gaining popularity and the NBA was relatively young as well, so baseball was still the "American pastime" and fans quickly formed connections to new franchises. By the time the 1990s rolled around, though, baseball was on even footing with football and basketball in terms of popularity, and they also had a nasty strike that cratered popularity. New expansion baseball teams had other sports teams to compete with for fan allegiance, so after their initial glitter wore away, interest and attendance faded quickly.
Right now, forming a new fan base has never been tougher. Think about it: it's a rare fan that cares passionately for multiple sports teams. You can root for multiple teams, but how many fans own season tickets to the Rays and the Buccs? How many fans own season tickets to the Giants, Yankees, and Knicks? We all have our biases: some fans care passionately about football, and only glance at the baseball standings every now and then. For some, it's the other way around. Because of this, I would imagine that the more teams there are in an area, the tougher it is for a new franchise to develop a fan base. Passions are already in place and it takes time to change those, although how much time I don't know. Back in the 1960s, baseball was the sport to care about, so it made it easy for those teams to develop their fan bases. These days, though, no matter where you were to put a new franchise, I bet they would struggle to develop a consistent, large fan base. It's a different world and too many fans have already sworn their allegiances to other teams.
0 recs |
9 comments
|
Comments
I have an interesting idea
Could a team split time between two cities and if so, how would that affect the attendance scores? Living in Portland, there is constant talk about bringing an expansion team to the city. If Portland co-opted an existing team with low attendance and split their home games, I’d imagine that it would increase the attendance. I know the Buffalo Bills had a ‘home’ game in Toronto this season, although that’s a bad example since Rogers Centre has a smaller capacity than Ralph Wilson Stadium.
That may be backing up my point
Firstly, that was a limited trial with only 22 games played in Puerto Rico, so there wasn’t a build up of fan support. Even with that, the average attendance in Puerto Rico was higher than in Montreal, so the experiment was beneficial.
Steve, if you have the data handy, I'd love to take a look at the correlations of all these teams to the Rays
In your example of the Mets, it was mentioned that Shea was finished for their third season. Perhaps this was a common occurence in the 1960’s expansion and could partially explain the upswing in attendance.
I'm a writer.
by Andy Hellicksonstine on Jan 18, 2010 9:36 AM EST reply actions
Here are all the correlations:
Mariners: .692
Expos/Nats: .567
Marlins: .536
D’Backs: .397
Jays: .270
Rangers: .074
Rockies: .033
Brewers: -.084
Royals: -.178
Astros: -.392
Angels: -.400
Padres: -.485
Mets: -.580
"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 Jan 18, 2010 5:31 PM EST up reply actions
Sorry for the delay
That’s quite possible about the Mets…wouldn’t be surprised. They had a lot going for them and like it was mentioned in the other post, they were filling in for other NL teams that had left. They got all the leftover Dodgers and Giants fans that had refused to switch to the Yankees, which probably accounted for partly their huge popularity. Also the whole “lovable losers” thing.
The Mariners are a really interesting case to look at….there’ll be a post on them coming up.
"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 Jan 18, 2010 5:41 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks for running all of these Steve
Might give you a whole new bout of questions to ask for why some teams compare so strongly and others not so much. I’m taking a look at how win% correlates to Att+.
I'm a writer.
by Andy Hellicksonstine on Jan 19, 2010 10:11 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah, I ran win% numbers yesterday too
It correlates well with the last two seasons, but not so much after that. I’d be interested to compare results, though, so let me send you some stuff.
As for the team correlations, I think it points again towards a time period difference in how fans responded to expansion teams. There’s more to it than that, but it’s an interesting starting ground.
"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 Jan 19, 2010 2:39 PM EST up reply actions

by 






















