Yes. You don't see the flucuations in the random odd years (our 2009 for exmaple). But, once a team is bad atendance is pretty much at mark X.
SD is a great example. Since 2020. They've had one winnings season. A few 90 loses seasons in there a few 80s. They made some big trades and signed some huge free agents...attendance every year is about 2.2 million.
The reds since their playoff run ended have hovered aroudn 1.8 million with 90 loss years. Spend some money, made a trade to bring in Kemp, Puig, Grey and everybody this year...their attendance was 1.8 million.
The White sox have been around 1.7 million this decade whether they've gone 78-84 or 62-100.
Now I dont have a great sample for us and the attendance is going down but that's because we've average 3 million for close to a decade. But, this year with 114 losses the attendance was 1.5. About the same as in 1992 when they went 75-87, and in 91 when they went 84-78 and 90 when they went 79-83 and in 89 when they went 59-103. Now, obviously there are park and other factors at play here. But, you can see about the same whether they are near 500 or crazy below (**** they had 1.36 million in 2003).
This whole "I'd care more if they just put a better product on the field and only lost 89 instead of 110" is just an attempt to justify losing interest in one's head. It's natural to lose interest when your not contending and look for some type of way of hope to get it back.
You know what will get it back winning alot. Not .500, the second the Tigers are back in teh playoff hunt, interest will go up and so will attendance, not to mention posts in the game threads. **** look at the Lions' threads. Early in the season, lots of posts. This week not so much. I doubt there would be any difference in the number of posts per week if the lions go 7-8-1 to finish the year or 3-12-1.