Thursday, July 3, 2008

100th post!

So it took a little bit longer than expected but we have reached our 100th post. Here are the thoughts of one brilliant AP writer, Tim Dahlberg, on baseball attendance.

...[T]he other thing that struck me was how many empty seats there were for one of the biggest games of the year in Minneapolis. It was Saturday, the Twins were riding a 10-game winning streak and the Milwaukee Brewers were in town.

A couple of weeks earlier, I noticed the same thing in San Diego. The hated Dodgers were playing the Padres, yet you could walk up just before the game and score a seat almost anywhere in Petco Park

So you went to two games and saw a lot of empty seats when you probably were expecting to see a few hundred more fans. Sounds like...

It's purely anecdotal, of course.

Well I'm glad you can admit to that. When you have two pieces of anedoctal evidence, it is very difficult to draw a broad conclusion. I hope you aren't about to do that.

But look around almost any stadium outside of Boston or New York and you'll see large chunks of prime seats going unused – whether the game is sold out or not.

Are you really claiming that by going to two games and looking at the seats on TV for a few more, you are able to know that baseball attendance is down (even though you acknowledge in this very article that MLB is expecting to set a record for number of seats sold)? So your theory is that people are buying tickets but then just not showing up for the games? And why is that?

...[M]aybe baseball isn't delivering on what brought fans back to the ballpark in the first place in the late '90s and touched off today's attendance boom: the big home run.

Glad to see your argument still makes no sense. To recap: People buy tickets and notice there are fewer home runs being hit. Decide to stay home in record numbers. Ya, of course. That makes perfect sense. Thanks for the insight Tim.

No comments: