PDA

View Full Version : Royals Royals can use Cardinals’ and Brewers’ fans as blueprint for success


Deberg_1990
10-19-2011, 08:05 AM
Cards and Brewers fans are the bestest in the world!!! Of course, if they were losing, nobody would be saying that.







Cardinals fans are the best around. Just ask one.

Thank you, thank you, folks. I’ll be here all week. Try the veal!

But even as Cardinals fans are overanalyzing the World Series that begins tonight and overappreciating players named Skip, as the rest of us roll our eyes and fight the urge to grab a sharp object, we should keep something in mind:

Cardinals fans are the most important in baseball. Seriously.

As annoying as this all may be, the numbers back it up. Actually, in one way of measuring such things, vetted by two industry experts, the Cardinals and NL Central-champion Brewers are the sport’s two most impactful fan bases.

We don’t usually think of it in these terms, but Cardinals and Brewers fans give their teams a decided competitive advantage and provide a blueprint of sorts in how the Royals might achieve sustained success.

“What we’ve done is just what you’re starting to see in Kansas City,” Brewers general manager Doug Melvin says.

This is based on numbers. Counting cities with two teams twice, St. Louis is the 23rd-biggest market in baseball based on Nielsen’s most recent rankings (this is U.S. only, so Toronto isn’t included).

Over the last five years, the Cardinals rank fourth in attendance and 12th in payroll — in both categories, outperforming their market more than any franchise in baseball. The Cardinals have a decimal-points edge over the Brewers, who play in the 28th-largest market and rank 10th in attendance and 17th in payroll.

In other words, fans in St. Louis and Milwaukee are propping up their small-market franchises to compete with — and beat — teams that baseball’s system favors.

St. Louis is a metropolitan area of 2.8 million people, but the overwhelming fan support for the Cardinals means they outdraw the Cubs (Chicago has 9.7 million people) and outspend Atlanta (5.6 million).

Milwaukee has 1.8 million people, one of only two baseball markets smaller than Kansas City, but support and spending there is bigger than the Rangers’ (the Metroplex has 6.4 million people).

The Rangers are about to begin a broadcast contract worth $70 million each year. The Brewers get $12 million. They’re able to spend $85 million on payroll this year mostly because baseball’s second-smallest market somehow bought more than 3 million tickets.

“That’s our biggest challenge,” Melvin says. “We have to have a significant fan base to be able to compete in the payroll areas. Otherwise, we’re very limited to where we can go.”

This is where the Royals are — or more accurately, hope to be soon. A chicken-and-egg dilemma is at work here: Teams often won’t spend until they win, and often can’t win until they spend.

So the Royals’ ability to win next year with what figures to again be one of baseball’s smallest payrolls is the key in the ignition.

Indications from within the Royals organization are that future payrolls will be handled very much like the Brewers’. Three years ago, when the Brewers needed pitching help, they added CC Sabathia at midseason. This year, they brought on Francisco Rodriguez.

Each move added more than $2 million to the Brewers’ payroll. Milwaukee also took on nearly $18 million in trades for Zack Greinke and Shaun Marcum this year.

Melvin is clear that these moves were done knowing the team would see a significant attendance boost with the added star power and talent. Places like Tampa Bay and Florida consistently underperform their market in attendance — even when winning — and so are a harder sell.

In this way, the Royals are in a good place. Attendance rose more than 5 percent in 2011 for a team that lost 91 games. A roster that got younger as the season went on actually drew more fans as the season went on — first time that’s happened since 2003, when the team was within a game of first place in September.

Actually, the Royals’ 11 home games in September drew an average of 26,531. That’s a 30 percent spike from the rest of the season: better support than the NL West-champion Diamondbacks got this year in Phoenix, and a bigger average than any full season in Kansas City since 1991 — before Eric Hosmer turned 2.

Let that sink in. The Royals drew more fans than they had in 20 years for the tail end of a lost season, just as football was starting up, because there’s a talented nucleus of players who will be around for a while and might just bring happier times in the future.

“Fans do like good, young players,” Melvin says. “So you build that. They’re on the right path. They’re doing the right things. You look for the next big step, which is to go .500, and then you go from there.”

These are some of the indicators that say Kansas City is just waiting to become a baseball town again.

Once it does, the Royals will be able to act much bigger than their market — just as the Brewers and Cardinals have done.



Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/18/3215948/royals-can-use-cardinals-and-brewers.html#ixzz1bETJT1P1

KCUnited
10-19-2011, 08:10 AM
We're going to need 3 more bars and a bigger ferris wheel if we want to grow our attendance. Get on that Jackson County.

blaise
10-19-2011, 08:23 AM
I understand carjackings are popular in St. Louis also.

teedubya
10-19-2011, 08:38 AM
Nice theory.

sedated
10-19-2011, 08:45 AM
the Royals have always had fans that would compete with any in baseball, we just need to win sometime (and the current owner isn't helping).

Deberg_1990
10-19-2011, 08:50 AM
Id love to see the Cards fanbase after they miss the playoffs for 26 years in a row.

Fish
10-19-2011, 08:51 AM
That's just stupid. It starts with the team on the field, not the fans in the stands.

duncan_idaho
10-19-2011, 09:00 AM
I think there's something to be said for having a fanbase that will outperform the market.

Tampa is a great example. They've been better than the Brewers recently, but the fans haven't shown up. If they'd become top 15 in attendance down there, they probably keep a few more of the guys they've lost. They probably aren't looking to trade James Shields in a salary-dump situation. Matt Garza probably never gets traded. Tampa is actually a destination that would have made a ton of sense for Zack Greinke, had they been willing to pay him.

I think KC will pretty seamlessly transition into an overperforming fanbase, though, if the Royals do start winning over the next few years. It was in the past, and can be again.

blaise
10-19-2011, 09:02 AM
The Royals should personally thank every person that buys a ticket. They used up all their credit long ago, as far as I'm concerned.

Frazod
10-19-2011, 09:14 AM
Id love to see the Cards fanbase after they miss the playoffs for 26 years in a row.

They did go 17 years between World Series appearances and 24 years between World Series wins. Fairly recently, in fact. During that time they won a few division titles here and there, but it was nothing spectactular.

blaise
10-19-2011, 09:19 AM
They did go 17 years between World Series appearances and 24 years between World Series wins. Fairly recently, in fact. During that time they won a few division titles here and there, but it was nothing spectactular.

A playoff appearance is a playoff appearance, and more importantly it means the team was at least competitive. With the Royals it's not even like you can root for a competitive team.
I think most Royals fans would take .500 ball because at least it means they're out there every night with a reasonable chance.

Dr. Facebook Fever
10-19-2011, 09:25 AM
I've been a Royals fan for 42 years and the last 26 I actually believe we can compete going into each season and still wear Royals gear and go to games when I can (I don't live there) and I always believe in next year (especially NEXT year :thumb:)

Show me a bunch of Cardinal fans who will be doing that after 26 years of losing. (actually I'm sure many would but that doesn't support my agenda right now)

I'M the best fan in the world!

:D

Deberg_1990
10-19-2011, 09:28 AM
I've been a Royals fan for 42 years and the last 26 I actually believe we can compete going into each season and still wear Royals gear and go to games when I can (I don't live there) and I always believe in next year (especially NEXT year :thumb:)

Show me a bunch of Cardinal fans who will be doing that after 26 years of losing. (actually I'm sure many would but that doesn't support my agenda right now)

I'M the best fan in the world!

:D

If you truly believe that, then yes...i believe you are. : )

Frazod
10-19-2011, 09:32 AM
A playoff appearance is a playoff appearance, and more importantly it means the team was at least competitive. With the Royals it's not even like you can root for a competitive team.
I think most Royals fans would take .500 ball because at least it means they're out there every night with a reasonable chance.

I understand. I used to love the Royals, and my descent from going out of my way to watch them play as often as I could (either in Milwaukee or Chicago) to not even knowing or caring who's on their roster was slow and painful. At least people who are local have a support group - I can usually count on one hand the number of people I see wearing Royals gear up here in a year.

I wish that life-sucking Walmart fuck would drop dead tomorrow and somebody who actually cares about winning would take over the team. I'd love to see them competitive again. It just never seems to happen.

Dr. Facebook Fever
10-19-2011, 09:32 AM
If you truly believe that, then yes...i believe you are. : )

I'm gonna go ahead and take that as a compliment... knowing full well that there's a fine line between fandom and idiocy.

:)

Dr. Facebook Fever
10-19-2011, 09:35 AM
(and the current owner isn't helping).

Actually he is but I'm not going to get into all of that right now.

PunkinDrublic
10-19-2011, 10:09 AM
It's not just 26 years of not making the playoffs. It's literally 26 years of being a laughing stock almost every other year. More times than not it seems the Royals finish at or near the bottom. Any market would stop going to games if they were as uncompetitive as the Royals have been.

Rausch
10-19-2011, 10:10 AM
It's not just 26 years of not making the playoffs. It's literally 26 years of being a laughing stock almost every other year. More times than not it seems the Royals finish at or near the bottom. Any market would stop going to games if they were as uncompetitive as the Royals have been.

Chiefs fans don't and you could argue that comment is pretty much valid for them as well...

PunkinDrublic
10-19-2011, 10:15 AM
Chiefs fans don't and you could argue that comment is pretty much valid for them as well...

At least the Chiefs have had times were they've been competitive during the regular season and made the playoffs.

blaise
10-19-2011, 10:15 AM
Chiefs fans don't and you could argue that comment is pretty much valid for them as well...

The Chiefs have had winning seasons.

Frazod
10-19-2011, 10:23 AM
It's not just 26 years of not making the playoffs. It's literally 26 years of being a laughing stock almost every other year. More times than not it seems the Royals finish at or near the bottom. Any market would stop going to games if they were as uncompetitive as the Royals have been.

I remember the last time I went to see the Royals play up here. They were horrible. Shitty pitching, hitting, defense and attitude. I didn't know who hardly any of the players were, and frankly it was better that way. I just sat there sinking lower and lower into my seat as the game got farther and farther out of hand. The Sox fans around me were sympathetic. DO YOU KNOW HOW FUCKING EMBARRASSING IT IS TO HAVE WHITE SOX FANS FEEL SORRY FOR YOU? Ugh.

Yeah, I finally got tired of being stranded alone on Suck Island. I certainly don't have to deal with that crap wearing my Cardinals stuff at Wrigley.

Chief Henry
10-19-2011, 10:36 AM
Id love to see the Cards fanbase after they miss the playoffs for 26 years in a row.

THIS

Dr. Facebook Fever
10-19-2011, 11:01 AM
Chiefs fans don't and you could argue that comment is pretty much valid for them as well...

Being the winningest team of the 90's kept Chiefs fans rabid even if there wasn't a playoff win. The Royals had one decent year in the 90's and it was the strike year.

whoman69
10-19-2011, 02:03 PM
Id love to see the Cards fanbase after they miss the playoffs for 26 years in a row.

The Cardinals did not make the playoffs once in the 70's but ranked 6th in attendance during that period.

They finished last in the NL east in 1990 and were 4th in attendance.

Deberg_1990
10-19-2011, 02:10 PM
The Cardinals did not make the playoffs once in the 70's but ranked 6th in attendance during that period.

They finished last in the NL east in 1990 and were 4th in attendance.

Still not even close to the sustained suckatude the Royals have been for years.

Fish
10-19-2011, 02:21 PM
I'll bet if the Astros just had better fans, they'd be in the WS instead of the Rangers....

Right?

ChiefsCountry
10-19-2011, 03:17 PM
Cardinal fans should kiss the dead ass of Fred Saigh that there is still even a Cardinals team to root for. Bil Veeck was really close to getting the Cardinals to move out of St. Louis.

whoman69
10-19-2011, 03:22 PM
Still not even close to the sustained suckatude the Royals have been for years.

I'd say that's on your owners. Since the Royals have been in existence, the Cardinals had a streak of 13 and 10 seasons without getting into the playoffs and still maintained their high attendance. Prior to that they had a streak of 17 seasons with no playoffs from 1947-1963. They also had to compete with a 2nd team in town from 1901-1953. If you're trying to submit that Cardinals fans are bandwagon fans, then you have no proof. What it says is the Royals have terrible ownership. What the owners see is a fanbase that will not put any more butts in the seats if they don't trade their young talent away.

veist
10-19-2011, 03:44 PM
I think you Royals fans are taking this the wrong way, its not "oh Royals fan support sucks" its "you guys showing up is the only way the team can have sustained success."

whoman69
10-19-2011, 03:44 PM
Cardinal fans should kiss the dead ass of Fred Saigh that there is still even a Cardinals team to root for. Bil Veeck was really close to getting the Cardinals to move out of St. Louis.

You'll need a link for that one. Veeck wanted to put in a bid for the Phillies and put negro league stars on the field but was blocked by the league. Saigh was forced out of Cardinals ownership after only 5 years. He did sell the team to Busch for less money to keep the team in St. Louis. At the time Veeck was already the owner of the St. Louis Browns, whom he was forced to sell in 1953 to a team which moved them to Baltimore after he realized he would not be able to compete with the resources that Busch lent to the Cardinals. Veeck was blocked from moving the Browns to Milwaukee because the Braves had a minor league franchise there. His attempts to move the Cardinals out of town failed including hiring former Cardinals greats Rogers Hornsby and Marty Marion as managers and getting Dizzy Dean to do the games on the radio. The Cardinals still had five times their attendance. To think Veeck was going to push the Cardinals out of town when he was desperate enough to use a midget in a game is ludicrous.

Fish
10-19-2011, 04:11 PM
I think you Royals fans are taking this the wrong way, its not "oh Royals fan support sucks" its "you guys showing up is the only way the team can have sustained success."

There have been some studies done on this. And they all suggest that you're wrong... All the studies conducted from minor league baseball on up suggest that winning brings attendance. Not the other way around.


CONCLUSION
The three-variable VAR presented here suggests that winning has a substantial and long-lasting effect on attendance, as all ten teams showed a significant increase in attendance. However, there is little support for the idea that shocks to attendance lead to future success on the field for the team, as only one team (Cleveland Indians) showed a significant increase in winning following a shock to attendance. There is also some indication that attendees at sporting events exhibit habit formation in their behavior, as shocks in attendance last for years after the shock. The above results are useful for researchers examining sports attendance. They suggest that the direction of causation runs from winning percentage to attendance and researchers can proceed under that assumption.http://umresearchboard.org/resources/davis/Baseball_Attendance_Winning.pdf



Another: http://books.google.com/books?id=piqukx31g70C&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=baseball+correlation+between+attendance+and+performance&source=bl&ots=ZSHoquUdnI&sig=dmcq-jhtpY8fnyGIVvrqxz0m3aI&hl=en&ei=8jifTo-FIcHfiALJkvRI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CGQQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Another: http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5002019280

Another involving minor league teams in comparison to MLB: http://pages.towson.edu/trhoads/Gitter%20and%20Rhoads%20WEA08.pdf

whoman69
10-19-2011, 05:13 PM
There have been some studies done on this. And they all suggest that you're wrong... All the studies conducted from minor league baseball on up suggest that winning brings attendance. Not the other way around.


http://umresearchboard.org/resources/davis/Baseball_Attendance_Winning.pdf



Another: http://books.google.com/books?id=piqukx31g70C&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=baseball+correlation+between+attendance+and+performance&source=bl&ots=ZSHoquUdnI&sig=dmcq-jhtpY8fnyGIVvrqxz0m3aI&hl=en&ei=8jifTo-FIcHfiALJkvRI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CGQQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Another: http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5002019280

Another involving minor league teams in comparison to MLB: http://pages.towson.edu/trhoads/Gitter%20and%20Rhoads%20WEA08.pdf

If nobody shows up, they're not going to take the investment to improve the team.

veist
10-19-2011, 05:14 PM
I didn't say "you guys showing up will bring success" its that when you are successful if the fans don't show up they will have to sell their pieces. Look at the Rays, lots of success in the last three years and attendance still dropped to 18K/gm this year. The fans have to show up or the success will be fleeting as those cost controlled contracts run out. For long-term success they have to be able to have dependable revenue.

BigRedChief
10-19-2011, 05:19 PM
Id love to see the Cards fanbase after they miss the playoffs for 26 years in a row.We sucked big time with no hope from the mid 70's to the Whitey Ball era. We still drew 25K per game.

Dartgod
10-19-2011, 05:35 PM
I understand. I used to love the Royals, and my descent from going out of my way to watch them play as often as I could (either in Milwaukee or Chicago) to not even knowing or caring who's on their roster was slow and painful. At least people who are local have a support group - I can usually count on one hand the number of people I see wearing Royals gear up here in a year.

I wish that life-sucking Walmart **** would drop dead tomorrow and somebody who actually cares about winning would take over the team. I'd love to see them competitive again. It just never seems to happen.
I got that when I wore my Royals gear the last couple of trips up there.

"Royals fan? I'm sorry."

BigRedChief
10-19-2011, 05:45 PM
I think you Royals fans are taking this the wrong way, its not "oh Royals fan support sucks" its "you guys showing up is the only way the team can have sustained success."I think they have showed up. A team that loses 100 games several times can sap a fan bases mojo.

KC does have a good fanbase thats ready to cheer for a winner.

tk13
10-19-2011, 05:52 PM
I think the best sign was that the Royals last home Sunday game drew almost 30,000 people... on a Chiefs football Sunday no less.

And that's with the reality that a chunk of people are still stuck in 2002 and are going to complain about Beltran and Dye and Glass and not go to the games until we have a winning record.

Fish
10-19-2011, 05:53 PM
If nobody shows up, they're not going to take the investment to improve the team.

If they make no investments to the team, then nobody will show up.

Look guys, the studies that have been done show that the direction of causation goes from team success to attendance. Not the other way around. The entire purpose of the studies was to determine the direction of causation. You can't have great attendance without first having success on the field.

This is the Abstract of the first study:

This study examines the importance of team success for attendance for major league baseball teams. Winning and attendance go together for most baseball teams, but the direction of causation is not obvious. Winning could lead to greater attendance as fans want to see a winner, while an increase in attendance could lead to greater winning as teams’ have greater resources to spend on salaries. This study finds that the direction of causation runs from team success to greater attendance, and that a sudden increase in fans does not lead to additional winning in the future.

SPchief
10-19-2011, 05:55 PM
I think the best sign was that the Royals last home Sunday game drew almost 30,000 people... on a Chiefs football Sunday no less.

And that's with the reality that a chunk of people are still stuck in 2002 and are going to complain about Beltran and Dye and Glass and not go to the games until we have a winning record.

And the last home game of the year wsa on a wed or thursday and it was cold and 29k showed up.

whoman69
10-19-2011, 06:38 PM
If they make no investments to the team, then nobody will show up.

Look guys, the studies that have been done show that the direction of causation goes from team success to attendance. Not the other way around. The entire purpose of the studies was to determine the direction of causation. You can't have great attendance without first having success on the field.

This is the Abstract of the first study:

Chicken or the egg here. They have had some young talent that was worth watching, players like Beltran and Greinke with no real bump in attendance. With the club seeing that, they are not going to sign that young talent to stay. The Royals farm system is usually pretty light because they have to bring up their talent before its ready or sign someone to vet minimum. When those players finally do develop their contract is up and the Royals can't afford them anymore. This seems to be the first time they've actually shown the patience to let the seeds of their farm system grow.

The studies you are citing are for the minor leagues which is an entirely different animal. The minors are connected to the big league club to give them talent. For a small market team their resources must come from a farm system giving them a steady stream of talent. If they get to a point where they can sign players to fill any holes they can compete. The Royals have been nowhere close to that. While competitors like the Athletics and Twins have been able to compete on occassion, the Royals never got to that point. They won't until the owner is willing to invest in the product. As long as they bring in young talent and still nobody comes, that investment will not come.

BigRedChief
10-19-2011, 06:49 PM
Cardinal fans should kiss the dead ass of Fred Saigh that there is still even a Cardinals team to root for. Bil Veeck was really close to getting the Cardinals to move out of St. Louis.How could Veeck have done that since he never owned the Cardinals?

Fish
10-19-2011, 07:09 PM
Chicken or the egg here. They have had some young talent that was worth watching, players like Beltran and Greinke with no real bump in attendance. With the club seeing that, they are not going to sign that young talent to stay. The Royals farm system is usually pretty light because they have to bring up their talent before its ready or sign someone to vet minimum. When those players finally do develop their contract is up and the Royals can't afford them anymore. This seems to be the first time they've actually shown the patience to let the seeds of their farm system grow.

The studies you are citing are for the minor leagues which is an entirely different animal. The minors are connected to the big league club to give them talent. For a small market team their resources must come from a farm system giving them a steady stream of talent. If they get to a point where they can sign players to fill any holes they can compete. The Royals have been nowhere close to that. While competitors like the Athletics and Twins have been able to compete on occassion, the Royals never got to that point. They won't until the owner is willing to invest in the product. As long as they bring in young talent and still nobody comes, that investment will not come.

Actually the year Greinke was doing so well, and eventually won the Cy Young, happened to be the best Royals attendance year since 1993. There was certainly an attendance boost from Greinke, despite the team overall being crappy that year.

I'm not sure what you mean about the farm system. You're saying they bring up the minor league players too early, yet you follow that saying when they do develop, their contract is up or they can't afford them. Why would their contracts be up if the players are brought up early?

And no, the first 3 studies I linked were not about minor league teams. Only the last one, in which I labeled "involving minor league teams in comparison to MLB".

Dayton Moore would have you believe the opposite direction of causality, which he even referenced last year saying the Royals would need to sell 2 million tickets to raise their revenue more than it has been. Which is BS. The studies I linked show exactly why it's BS.