Jump to content

IdahoBert

2019-2020 OFFSEASON DISCUSSION THREAD

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, leflore said:

I don't doubt you but I certainly respond differently. And as for the evidence, does it include successive terrible years? I could see attendance the same through one historically bad season. But what about the next year? I would think interest would drop off the longer the gutter-ball continues. And I think we all see that 2020 might be nearly as bad.

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.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Casimir said:

I don’t know about this.  In previous seasons I’d watch as much of as many games as possible.  I’d record and start from the beginning.  Last season, not so much.  I’d check in on every game that I could, and I typically get a chance to every day, even if for only a little bit.  But I found myself checking on live more than before rather than starting from the beginning.  But, to each, their own, or something like that.

But that's because they are winning. Your interested your invested. 

It doesn't change when you know there isn't much hope. 

I'll give you my personal example, in 2015 I couldn't get enough college football. Iowa was winning every week and I was watching every game I could. Oh they talked bad about us! Oh i need arkansas state to beat middle utah because it will raise our strength of schedule by .000000021. 

When Iowa is 8-4 or 6-6- or 4-8? I'll still watch on saturday, but that's about it. 

Same concept here. It wouldn't matter if the Tigers were 75 wins instead of 55 you wouldn't be checking in on every game. You'd would have accepted fate and knew in either situtation you weren't going to win the ultimate goal. You'd stil find other interest to fill those gaps. 

Once they win again you'll be right back to checking in on Oakland vs Toronto because it might have wild card implications. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Keepleyland2 said:

But that's because they are winning. Your interested your invested. 

It doesn't change when you know there isn't much hope. 

I'll give you my personal example, in 2015 I couldn't get enough college football. Iowa was winning every week and I was watching every game I could. Oh they talked bad about us! Oh i need arkansas state to beat middle utah because it will raise our strength of schedule by .000000021. 

When Iowa is 8-4 or 6-6- or 4-8? I'll still watch on saturday, but that's about it. 

Same concept here. It wouldn't matter if the Tigers were 75 wins instead of 55 you wouldn't be checking in on every game. You'd would have accepted fate and knew in either situtation you weren't going to win the ultimate goal. You'd stil find other interest to fill those gaps. 

Once they win again you'll be right back to checking in on Oakland vs Toronto because it might have wild card implications. 

Since you brought up college football.....

I turned off the Buckeye game late in the game to watch the end of Penn State and Minnesota.  How does that factor into your favorite team winning driving interest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lei Pong said:

I was a teenager in the 70's...1975 was brutal there was NOTHING about that team that was even remotely fun.  They touted guys like Danny Meyers, Leon Roberts and Vern Ruhle..but you didn't get the feeling that there was greatness there.  From 1976 on...things were different. The Bird, Rozema,  Morris, Jason Thompson, Kemp, Lou and Tram and Parrish started showing up and LeFlore established himself as an offensive threat.  That was a fun time to be a fan...Then they drafted Gibby and the Guts and the Glue of the Maize and Blue, Ricky Leach...that was something.  Then they shafted Less Moss and hired Sparky...you felt badly for the old Jughead...but c'mon...It's Sparky.  

 

Good Times...way more fun than this

74-75 were pretty bad.  After that, I agree it was a good time to be a Tigers fan.  76-87 was my most enjoyable period as a fan.  Part of it was my age, but they also had a fun team.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Keepleyland2 said:

But that's because they are winning. Your interested your invested. 

It doesn't change when you know there isn't much hope. 

 

Oblong brought up a great point about fans that frequently go to games.  It's not so about winning or losing, but the experience  of being at the game.  If you are watching on TV or listening on radio, it is different and there are clearly far fewer fans tuning in the last couple of years:

'https://www.blessyouboys.com/2019/10/16/20915561/detroit-tigers-tv-ratings-2019-fox-sports-detroit-contract-details-forbes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Keepleyland2 said:

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.

I understand what you are saying, but I'm talking about prolonged terrible baseball, as we saw in 2019 in Detroit. 

Example Houston:

'07-'10 they lost 89, 75, 88 and 86. Attendance was 3mil, 2.78, 2.5, 2.3

Then from '11-'13 they lost 106, 107, 111

Attendance was 2mil, 1.6, 1.65

So imho that data shows more people will go see a non-playoff but competetive team than they will a terrible team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

Oblong brought up a great point about fans that frequently go to games.  It's not so about winning or losing, but the experience  of being at the game.  If you are watching on TV or listening on radio, it is different and there are clearly far fewer fans tuning in the last couple of years:

'https://www.blessyouboys.com/2019/10/16/20915561/detroit-tigers-tv-ratings-2019-fox-sports-detroit-contract-details-forbes

If I lived within a couple hours of Detroit I‘d go to a lot of games no matter what. But since I live 2000 miles away I see a game on average once every 30 years. ‘68, ‘88, 2019. By my reckoning when I see my next game I’ll be nearly 100 years old, there will be a domed stadium, and I’ll watch holograms of robots playing on the field. Tigers will probably be extinct by then. So the team will have to have a new name. Michigan MoBots, or colloquially the M&Ms. By this time they will be nearly a.500 team. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Oblong said:

As for my own entertainment the actual winning and losing by my team is just a portion of what I get out of the entire experience. I enjoy the camaraderie, being outside, being downtown, and watching the game itself.  I can get joy out of seeing a well executed 6-4-3 or clutch hit or big strikeout.  Not trying to go all Field of Dreams here but it is still fun. Sometimes it’s more fun at times like this because the riff raff is not there. 

I would also add that for me, my age / maturity / life stage influences the thing as well.  Prior to being married I probably watched 90% of all TIgers/Pistons/Wings and Lions games (mostly on TV), and the ones I missed were because the Wings and Pistons played the same night at the same time or some ***hole acquaintance either died got married the same night Wings played the Avalanche.  Unbelievable. 

Then I got married and had children.  Children's activities ate up most of my time, and generally I could only catch parts of games.  Then it became only parts of games very periodically.  Got to the point where I was seeing as many games in person (with my sons, generally) as I was on TV.

Soon I'll be an empty nester and I kinda lost the sports watching habit.  I frankly find it hard to sit through any game unless I am in attendance.  And I do enjoy watching baseball in person for a number of reasons outside of the quality of the Tigers.

EDIT: I have less than zero interest in following a second MLB team.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Lei Pong said:

1975 was brutal there was NOTHING about that team that was even remotely fun. 

True.

But collecting those 1975 Topps minis sure was fun!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tiger337 said:

Oblong brought up a great point about fans that frequently go to games.  It's not so about winning or losing, but the experience  of being at the game.  If you are watching on TV or listening on radio, it is different and there are clearly far fewer fans tuning in the last couple of years:

'https://www.blessyouboys.com/2019/10/16/20915561/detroit-tigers-tv-ratings-2019-fox-sports-detroit-contract-details-forbes

And to be fair I didn’t watch much this year... or listen at work.   I went to 25 games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Keepleyland2 said:

Evidence doesn't support tthis claim. I don't know how many times I have to point it out. Whether your 2 games or 18 or 45 games below .500 ticket sales are about the same (over a long sample size).

Lack of evidence you're citing, eh? OK, how about this?

1486203468_Tigersattendanceperformancecorrelation.jpg.3748dbd933917befbbb3d2a44aa262b3.jpg

From 1988 through 2019, a total of 32 seasons, there is a +0.66 correlation between attendance and the Tigers +/- .500 record.

Evidence supports the claim that there is a correlation between ticket sales and performance against .500. And just eyeballing the right side of the chart, as the team has gotten worse in recent years, attendance has continued to drop, not stabilize. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Oblong said:

And to be fair I didn’t watch much this year... or listen at work.   I went to 25 games. 

I still listened to games to hear Dan Dickerson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tiger337 said:

74-75 were pretty bad.  After that, I agree it was a good time to be a Tigers fan.  76-87 was my most enjoyable period as a fan.  Part of it was my age, but they also had a fun team.    

Yes!  And 90-93 was a lot of fun too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tiger337 said:

74-75 were pretty bad.  After that, I agree it was a good time to be a Tigers fan.  76-87 was my most enjoyable period as a fan.  Part of it was my age, but they also had a fun team.    

 

3 hours ago, leflore said:

I understand what you are saying, but I'm talking about prolonged terrible baseball, as we saw in 2019 in Detroit. 

Example Houston:

'07-'10 they lost 89, 75, 88 and 86. Attendance was 3mil, 2.78, 2.5, 2.3

Then from '11-'13 they lost 106, 107, 111

Attendance was 2mil, 1.6, 1.65

So imho that data shows more people will go see a non-playoff but competetive team than they will a terrible team

There are a lot of points in the above posts and more. IMHO, a lot of course is subjective to each fan. Yes, '74 & '75 were brutal per say. Yet, in '76 they were 74-87 and were a lot more fun to watch - why? The Bird, Leflore, Rusty, Jason Thompson, etc... A point can also be made that it is not just 'stadium' attendance this day and age. We all know this but tend go by these nos. maybe too often. Watching on cable is just as important to many teams as advertisers etc. pay into this and it is an excellent revenue stream for many clubs.

So, a team with good players or developing players (fans who like to watch and identify with) may be what many wish for and advertisers will know this, hence ratings are decent even if the team is only 'competitive' ex 70+ wins maybe... Last year was just bad and few want to watch any of that again. It may not effect attendance big time, but sign/trade for a few players that fans may like. Develop some others (the young Ps and more), draft well (IF they can do that) and things start to turn around. There is a big difference between 50 and 70 wins, maybe not in actual physical attendance but in ratings, future plans for advertisers, fan recognition, attire sales, etc... It is also much more realistic (though not impossible) to go from 70+ to 90 wins than from 50 to 90.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sabretooth said:

Yes!  And 90-93 was a lot of fun too.

yeah, that was a fun period too.  No pitching, but man could they hit!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

yeah, that was a fun period too.  No pitching, but man could they hit!  

Two words, one name: Larry M'fng Sheets.  

So awesome, I added another word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

It is too bad they didn't have an OF or a staff worth a damn.

The pitching was brutal....then, gulp, Rob Deer in RF and name-the-stiff-of-the-month in LF (Inky, etc.).

But yeah, they could mash.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, chasfh said:

Lack of evidence you're citing, eh? OK, how about this?

1486203468_Tigersattendanceperformancecorrelation.jpg.3748dbd933917befbbb3d2a44aa262b3.jpg

From 1988 through 2019, a total of 32 seasons, there is a +0.66 correlation between attendance and the Tigers +/- .500 record.

Evidence supports the claim that there is a correlation between ticket sales and performance against .500. And just eyeballing the right side of the chart, as the team has gotten worse in recent years, attendance has continued to drop, not stabilize. 

I can't even believe that this is a point of debate.  Thanks for clarifying.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tiger337 said:

yeah, that was a fun period too.  No pitching, but man could they hit!  

I had forgotten about Fryman’s cycle in 1993 against the Yankees until I read your comments. 

I recalled the morning after his hitting for the cycle I was so stoked about it. At the time I was supervising a day crew in a pharma production facility. I remember explaining to the guys that morning in the shift meeting what hitting for the cycle entailed. They probably wondered where that came from but I was still living it. Man, the Tigers had some bats back then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, sabretooth said:

The pitching was brutal....then, gulp, Rob Deer in RF and name-the-stiff-of-the-month in LF (Inky, etc.).

But yeah, they could mash.  

Pete Incaviglia.  12 MLB seasons, 15 MLB jerseys.  The quintessential DH playing corner OF.  He was part of that wacky 1993 Phillies team that took a wrong turn and ended up in the World Series.  I bet he was Elmn's favorite ball player growing up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody got a chart that correlates "desire for baseball" vs "just starting snow shoveling season"?  It feels like forever since the Tigers played a game and I think I am done with winter already.  Pretty sure this is the first time that I mowed the lawn on one day and then shoveled snow the next day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 1776 said:

I had forgotten about Fryman’s cycle in 1993 against the Yankees until I read your comments. 

I recalled the morning after his hitting for the cycle I was so stoked about it. At the time I was supervising a day crew in a pharma production facility. I remember explaining to the guys that morning in the shift meeting what hitting for the cycle entailed. They probably wondered where that came from but I was still living it. Man, the Tigers had some bats back then. 

I was at the Fryman cycle game (Easley's as well).  Day game, Travis went 5-5, opening and closing with a double.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Casimir said:

Anybody got a chart that correlates "desire for baseball" vs "just starting snow shoveling season"?  It feels like forever since the Tigers played a game and I think I am done with winter already.  Pretty sure this is the first time that I mowed the lawn on one day and then shoveled snow the next day.

I was thinking about that yesterday.... usually when we get a snowfall like this I'm comforted by the fact that baseball is just 2 months away and they are in FL right now, or soon,  practicing and playing.... now we've got like 5 months still...

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...