DC as a baseball town

[Gleason2]

Phil Wood pointed out a couple of interesting facts in his recent MASN blog.  One was that the pre-1972 Cincinnati Reds had attendance that closely mirrored that of the expansion Senators, yet Cincinnati was never referred to as a bad baseball town the way that Washington was (and still is by many).  The other thing that he pointed out was that the Nationals and Orioles combined for nearly 3.6 million in attendance in 2010.  Considering that both teams were terrible yet still flirted with 2 million each (with the Nats drawing about 100,000 more than the Orioles) this season indicates that this region does support even bad baseball.

[shoeshineboy]

Phil Wood pointed out a couple of interesting facts in his recent MASN blog.  One was that the pre-1972 Cincinnati Reds had attendance that closely mirrored that of the expansion Senators, yet Cincinnati was never referred to as a bad baseball town the way that Washington was (and still is by many).  The other thing that he pointed out was that the Nationals and Orioles combined for nearly 3.6 million in attendance in 2010.  Considering that both teams were terrible yet still flirted with 2 million each (with the Nats drawing about 100,000 more than the Orioles) this season indicates that this region does support even bad baseball.

It's two different cities, two different media markets. The fact that Phil Wood continues to lump the two teams together is yet another reason he needs to go. The issues with DC as a baseball town are not about attendance. it is about the Redskins.

[UMDNats]

Phil Wood is by far the worst person MASN employs. He's universally hated, but yet they continue to pay him for history lessons about the 1950s.

[shoeshineboy]

Phil Wood is by far the worst person MASN employs. He's universally hated, but yet they continue to pay him for history lessons about the 1950s.

Amen. At least when he is on the TV post game, he isn't on the radio taking up the whole "call in" show with his monologues about the 1950s.

[UMDNats]

Amen. At least when he is on the TV post game, he isn't on the radio taking up the whole "call in" show with his monologues about the 1950s.

I've listened to the call-in show one time in the last few years and the one time I did, Phil let about 3 callers get through before attacking them and going on and on about Walter Johnson and other players who played eons ago.

The Caps show is infinitely better because the host actually lets fans get through and air their opinions, even if he disagrees. What a concept.

[UMDNats]

If this team actually hires Ray Knight as color commentator and leaves Phil Wood on the pre-game/post-game, I will stop watching the studio shows entirely.

My roomates (non-Nats fans) always come into the room and say, "Who let Brian billick's grosser brother on the TV?"

[shoeshineboy]

If this team actually hires Ray Knight as color commentator and leaves Phil Wood on the pre-game/post-game, I will stop watching the studio shows entirely.

My roomates (non-Nats fans) always come into the room and say, "Who let Brian billick's grosser brother on the TV?"

I can't see Ray taking the job. He doesn't want the travel.

[UMDNats]

I can't see Ray taking the job. He doesn't want the travel.

Good. He's solid in the studio, hilariously bad on color. He should never be allowed to use a telestrator.

[HalfSmokes]

Who knows how if DC is a baseball town, no one is going to pay to see a bottom feeder with no history to fall back on, give it a few years with a competitive team, then make a judgement.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Baltimore by themselves drew over 3.6 MM 4 times in the 90s, and drew over 3.4 MM every full season at OPACY through 1999.  In 2004, they drew 1 MM more than this year. Angelos was 100% right about the effect of bringing a team to the DC area would have on the team up the parkway.  The relocation into DC made it so Baltimore could not compete financially in the AL East.  Not that I have shred of sympathy for him, but it cannot be seriously disputed that the Nats hurt the Os in terms of attendance.

[CALSGR8]

Then how do you explain that the O's had their lowest attendance figures when the Nats were Out of Town! 

[Gleason2]

You don't have to like or respect Phil Wood to appreciate the facts that he pointed out.  Washington is not a bad baseball town and I have great confidence that if the Nats ever start to win, the team will begin to flirt with the 2.5-3.0 million attendance mark.  People in this town will support a winner (the Caps are living proof of that), but also have provided decent support while the team currently sucks.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

You don't have to like or respect Phil Wood to appreciate the facts that he pointed out. 

Boasting about almost hitting 3.6 MM for two teams is stupid when one team used to top it routinely.  Heck, 2005 the two teams hit 4.3+ MM.

[HalfSmokes]

Then how do you explain that the O's had their lowest attendance figures when the Nats were Out of Town! 

if people change allegiances, it doesn't mean they will still go to see the other team when the new one is out of town. Lets say a family plans on attending ten games, one team being out of town on a given date won't necessarily change how the family allocates those ten games.

[shoeshineboy]

Washington is not a bad baseball town and I have great confidence that if the Nats ever start to win, the team will begin to flirt with the 2.5-3.0 million attendance mark.  People in this town will support a winner (the Caps are living proof of that), but also have provided decent support while the team currently sucks.

Agreed

[shoeshineboy]

Baltimore by themselves drew over 3.6 MM 4 times in the 90s, and drew over 3.4 MM every full season at OPACY through 1999.  In 2004, they drew 1 MM more than this year. Angelos was 100% right about the effect of bringing a team to the DC area would have on the team up the parkway.  The relocation into DC made it so Baltimore could not compete financially in the AL East.  Not that I have shred of sympathy for him, but it cannot be seriously disputed that the Nats hurt the Os in terms of attendance.

Angelos had actually already started losing a lot of DC-based support prior to the Nats arriving. The O's were once able to compete regularly, and without a team in DC, Angelos took a once proud and successful franchise to constant loser well before 2005 without any competition from the DC market.

No one can deny that the arrival of the Nats cut into a certain amount of the still supportive DC-based fan base, but Angelos had run the organization into the ground before that. Throw in having to compete with Yankees and Red Sox budgets and it becomes harder. But in terms of attendance, an investment in a decent team would generate a huge turnout given the number of sellout crowds they get by default with the other AL East teams coming to town.

[DPMOmaha]

The Mets and Yankees combined for 6.3 mil in attendance this year.  Dodgers and Angels had more than 6.8.  San Fran and Oakland almost got to 4.5.

[PowerBoater69]

Phil Wood is a MASN hack, he's the anti-Dibble, all positive all the time.  His comparison of 1972 Cincinnati to 2010 Washington is laughable considering the populations and disposable income.

[HalfSmokes]

The Mets and Yankees combined for 6.3 mil in attendance this year.  Dodgers and Angels had more than 6.8.  San Fran and Oakland almost got to 4.5.

those are the number 1 and 2 markets in the country and San Fran had a playoff team in a tight race. I don't think it's fair to compare two last place teams to other markets, what other market has both of its teams picking in the top 6? 

[Gleason2]

Phil Wood is a MASN hack, he's the anti-Dibble, all positive all the time.  His comparison of 1972 Cincinnati to 2010 Washington is laughable considering the populations and disposable income.

He wasn't comparing 1972 Cincinnati to 2010 Washington.  He was comparing pre-1972 Cincinnati to pre-1972 Washington.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Angelos had actually already started losing a lot of DC-based support prior to the Nats arriving. The O's were once able to compete regularly, and without a team in DC, Angelos took a once proud and successful franchise to constant loser well before 2005 without any competition from the DC market.

No one can deny that the arrival of the Nats cut into a certain amount of the still supportive DC-based fan base, but Angelos had run the organization into the ground before that. Throw in having to compete with Yankees and Red Sox budgets and it becomes harder. But in terms of attendance, an investment in a decent team would generate a huge turnout given the number of sellout crowds they get by default with the other AL East teams coming to town.

Sure, he lost his first million by fielding stinky teams, but even in 2004 and 2005, he was drawing 2.6 - 2.7 MM.  The last million is from people like me.  Arlington resident who will only consider going to Baltimore if it is a team I'm interested, and it's a Saturday night, and the Red Sox aren't the 4 O'clock game, and . . .  Maybe an Angels game on a Saturday if one of my friends from Orange County wants to go.  Short of that, he's lost west of the Patuxent.  now if there were no Nats, I'd still be taking leave at 4 PM and going up weeknights, and he'd have the market to compete with the big boys up north.  How odd his attendance from 2005 is down about 1/3 when he said he drew close to 1/3 of his crowd from the Washington area.

[Gleason2]

Sure, he lost his first million by fielding stinky teams, but even in 2004 and 2005, he was drawing 2.6 - 2.7 MM.  The last million is from people like me.  Arlington resident who will only consider going to Baltimore if it is a team I'm interested, and it's a Saturday night, and the Red Sox aren't the 4 O'clock game, and . . .  Maybe an Angels game on a Saturday if one of my friends from Orange County wants to go.  Short of that, he's lost west of the Patuxent.  now if there were no Nats, I'd still be taking leave at 4 PM and going up weeknights, and he'd have the market to compete with the big boys up north.  How odd his attendance from 2005 is down about 1/3 when he said he drew close to 1/3 of his crowd from the Washington area.

Are we supposed to feel sorry for him?

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Are we supposed to feel sorry for him?

no.

Not that I have shred of sympathy for him, but it cannot be seriously disputed that the Nats hurt the Os in terms of attendance.

[welch]

- The Nats always drew well when they fielded a team that could win half its games.

- Washington became a Redskins-only town the day that Bob <unmentionable> announced he was moving the team to Dallas, and George Allen countered that MLB had insulted the Nation's Capital and that the Redskins would give the town something to be proud of. They did: went to the playoffs for the first time in about 25 years.

- Washington has had baseball for six seasons, and the Lerners have owned the franchise for for more than four seasons. If a team plays dead every year, fans lose interest. That's why I maintain that the Lerners are foolish...foolish to squander a large and wealthy market.

- Some have insisted that the Nats make a steady profit. If so, then

 (a) the team is a cash-cow. Owners treat a business as a cash-cow only when they know the business cannot grow. They move the profits into new business, until the cash-cow dies. This would be foolish of the Lerners because

 (b) Owners buy a franchise for the ego-boost. The power to get on TV. The chance to stand with Joe Gibbs and hold a Super Bowl trophy. (Cooke made his money owning department stores in Canada, but he had his thrills when the TV cameras would pan to the owners box, and announcers would goggle on about which Supreme Court Justice etc had been invited to sit with JKC). People ridicule the Nats; where's the ego puffing quality in that?

[MarquisDeSade]

That's why I maintain that the Lerners are foolish...foolish to squander a large and wealthy market.

Exactly.  My wife and I have no kids, tons of disposable income, both of us work close to the stadium, and we're both huge baseball fans.  I can't get my wife to go to more than 10 games a season now that we've become the doormat of the NL East.  I can't get my coworkers to go to more than one game a year and our offices are a 10 minute walk (or five minute shuttle ride) from the stadium.  Even when we get tickets for free people won't go (even during day games).  The reason why?  The all say "they suck", "they've got no stars (this is pre-Strasburg)", "it's too much of a hassle for such a crappy product", "the tickets are free but the parking is at least $10 and the food will be $20 and the team will lose", or, my favorite, "they don't care, why should I?" 

People ridicule the Nats; where's the ego puffing quality in that?

I don't know the FO/owners motivations but this doesn't really seem like a passion for them, it seems like it's just strictly a passive income stream.  Sure Mark Lerner gets to pretend like he's qualified to do something more than lick jockstraps and shag batting practice but I can't imagine any real baseball people respecting him.