les, seriously, how do you say so much without saying anything at all? You've written about eight paragraphs without a single word of it being significant.
This is why I have no respect for you whatsoever. You try to pass off a thesis as proof. You have only supplied an ABSTRACT. Where’s the actual paper itself so that its methods can be challenged? And it doesn’t really address the issue anyway. Why are we looking at a formula which factors in ticket price when the draw is calculated by paid attendance? What does playing surface have to do with anything? It asserts that turf teams draw less, implying (because of its very inclusion)that it’s in part due to turf and not the broader market issues like with Montreal, to name a turf stadium.
The paper was written by D.H. Rivers. I don't have it online, but if you look quickly it's pretty simple to tell that winning teams draw more fans than losing teams. Winning games is more important than having marquee players on losing teams. One of the most important factors to attendance is also the previous year's attendance; it sounds strange but it's true. A team that has a sudden increase or decrease in wins doesn't feel the ticket office effect until the year afterwards, in most cases (Re: Cleveland this year).
A-Rod from 2001-2003 - on a losing team, attendance dropped in his era in Texas
Mantle - In the three years that the Yankees had a losing record in Mantle's illustrious career, they finished 2nd, 5th, and 5th in attendance. They were first every other year except 1960, 63, and 68, where they finished 2nd, 2nd, and 3rd.
Mattingly - In the years the Yankees had a losing record with Mattingly on the team their attendance ranked 8th, 9th, 11th, and 11th. When the Yanks had a winning record with Mattingly they were 5th once, 6th twice, 7th once, and all other times in the top 4.
Bonds - With marquee player Barry Bonds on the Pirates from 1986-92, the years they had a losing record they were 12th, 12th, and 11th on the attendance list. The years they had a winning record they were 8th, 6th, 8th, and 7th.
Gwynn - from 1983-2001, in the years with a losing record the Padres averaged 10.5th place in attendance. With a winning record they averaged 7th place in attendance.
From this quick sweep of players/teams, one can assert that having marquee players (Mantle, Mattingly, Gwynn, A-Rod, Bonds) has little correlation to attendance, or at least not nearly as much as winning percentage.
lesgrant wrote:This reminds me of your range-factor assertions about Jeter. When the curtain is pulled, you had nothing but smoke and mirrors. You’re clearly the type of guy who reads the Cliff Notes instead of the actual book and then tries to act like the authority on something he’s never read. Not to be picky, but who is the author of this supposed masterpiece? I must have missed it because it wasn’t at the top of the page next to the title. I hope it has an author other than your a**.
D.H. Rivers. First scholarly journal.
Seriously, what have you added to this discussion yourself? At all? Other than calling the Mets a JV team, I really don't see much originality.
Oh, and thank you for telling me what kind of guy I am. I didn't know beforehand. Now that I've been informed, I'll stop reading the four books I'm in the middle of right now and simply look up notes for them.
lesgrant wrote:As far as Texas goes, your pattern isn’t proof of anything because it assumes all other variables are constant. For example, other sports / entertainment options, like the Mavericks and the Cowboys. How do those two teams’ draw affect the Rangers? What about the overall economy in Dallas over those years? Last time I checked, disposable income is a factor in making an entertainment purchase – especially for families.
You know, lesgrant, I've done all the research so far. Why don't you stop typing essay-length papers and look this up yourself? After all, you have nothing to add to the discussion if you bring nothing but words to the table. They have to be backed with substance, which I haven't seen any of from you. You are, from what I can tell (see, I'm not telling you directly what you are, because I've never met you! I'm not arrogant enough to believe I know a person simply from online discussions.), a "fluff" writer.
lesgrant wrote:I hope you’re not foolish enough to assert that there are no financial benefits to having marquis players on a team. If so, then why is it that the Yankees usually lead the league in road attendance? (and don’t say ‘because they are a winning team’ when winning could be attributed to marquis talent) Why is it that the length of the Yankee season, over the past three years, keeps getting shorter and shorter, with them winning fewer regular season games each year, while their total attendance increased each year? Where’s the new stadium? How does your source address that issue? Who was that source again?
A) The Yankees lead the league in road attendance (I'm taking your word for this one) because they're the most popular team in the world. By far. No contest. Nothing sells like the Yankees in this day and age.
B) Attendance across the board in baseball has been going up year by year. That's kind of like saying that the Expos in 2003 were more popular than the Yankees in the 40s because they draw more fans.
lesgrant wrote:And Texas is a lame example to begin with. They had one guy. The Yankees have that guy plus a slew of others who were marquis players on their former teams. That collective is more valuable financially than say, the LA Dodgers or Angels or Mets. It generates much more overall revenue than the winning group of nobodies. This includes all level of merchandise, ticket sales, TV licensing, both foreign and domestic, etc. Kaz doesn’t deliver Japan like Hideki. And I guess Pedro has had no impact on Mets’ ticket sales or TV ratings. Right? He sure did in Boston.
Well, Pedro has an impact on the Mets actually winning games. All the other stuff he does is gravy. They create revenue because of the Yankee power, I think I've been over this. The Yanks have a ridiculous amount of power over the other ballclubs, and not just because of their marquee players. You're talking about merchandise now, by the way... All I'm talking about is ticket sales.
lesgrant wrote:The bottom line is that Steinbrenner’s way of business works for him, works for me and a bunch of other Yankee fans, but it sucks for you. Too bad. Until it no longer makes financial sense for the Yankees to spend money on marquis talent, then it’s good for the Yankees, bad for you. It’s just that simple.
Yeah, it works. Nobody's not saying that. But it could work much better with a few changes in business decisions. It's obvious that the Yankees simply aren't going to stop spending money. The difference is with what efficiency will they spend that money? The Yankees should be focused on winning baseball games AND turning the largest profit that they can (Econ 101).
lesgrant wrote:BTW: None of the players you mentioned would EVER sign with the Yankees for the same price they signed with their respective teams – including Reyes. If you don’t get that one, you don’t understand much about the business of baseball. How could they have had Michael Young? Why would the pursue him? In terms of middle infielders, the Yankees have a farm system which has produced both Jeter and Cano. Why would they need a Young? The Yankees could have had your boy Beltran, but they let the Mets have those stale goods.
Oh man, all these under-handed swipes at the Mets? What is with you? Did Anna Benson turn you down or something? I haven't had any swipes at the Yankees- I haven't bashed them at all. You're going crazy with this stuff!
I'm not saying that they would have them at that price, but signing Jeter for $19 million a year is not going to benefit them as much as if they had signed him for something closer to his market value. Without Jeter and his contract, they could
have gone after David Eckstein this year, who signed for 2.3 million. That's a lot of economic flexibility.
lesgrant wrote:As for your assertion that “nobody pays attention” – you, obviously, do. And you do so every time I use the word desperate. I use it to apply to all of your ilk. (And what’s with the ‘dear’? – sarcastic terms of endearment are pretty weak, especially given that it’s no secret on this board that we don’t like one another. Be a man.)
It's not that I want to. It's that you say it in nearly every discussion we have. So after a while it just becomes old.
You don't like me? You've never even MET me! Your entire basis of knowledge about me is baseball discussions. It's kind of crazy to assume that we wouldn't get along in a social setting. Although, if you want to think of life on a fantasy baseball forum, be my guest.
lesgrant wrote:But that type of pussy-footing around is par for the course with you. You try and hedge your Yankee-hatred with one meaningless affirmation, then you’ll spend the other 95% of your words bashing him. If we were to go through every Jeter/Yankee post you’ve made here, paragraph by paragraph, I guarantee that the paragraphs with negative subject matter far outnumber the positive paragraphs. But yet you want to, on numerous occasions, say how objective you are. Honest Iago - it’s farcical.
Show me one paragraph in this thread where I've bashed the Yankees senselessly. Show me one paragraph in this thread where I've said bad things about Derek Jeter the player.
Seriously, where are you getting this from? All the bashing in this thread is you on the Mets! This conversation had nothing to do with the Mets until you brought them into it just to bash them!
lesgrant wrote:And then we get to:
(EDITED BEFORE I WRITE IT)
For once I’m backing you. You should seriously consider doing that a LOT more often. Trust me on this one.
You're one to talk. You write more fluff than anyone I've ever met in my entire life. Your post has no substance... All you're saying to me is your own opinion about these matters. Give me some hard facts.
It's like the Bonds discussion. I asked you for hard facts, and you never gave them to me. I suppose I should expect that by now...
Add something to the thread that actually matters before you post 10-paragraph essays that could be summed up in ten words: "I am right, you are wrong, that's what I think."