tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post114240494476229241..comments2023-07-09T11:23:36.355-04:00Comments on On Baseball & The Reds: Quantifying Fan Interest, pt. 2jinazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07697776280178146413noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-1142622768401768742006-03-17T14:12:00.000-05:002006-03-17T14:12:00.000-05:00Well, looking at the Reds' attendance figures, it ...Well, looking at the <A HREF="http://www.kenn.com/sports/baseball/mlb/mlb_cin_attendance.html" REL="nofollow">Reds' attendance figures</A>, it looks like they even got something of a boost in attendance, albiet nothing comnpared to what Cleveland or Baltimore got after their stadium opened. I've got an idea of how to pursue this bit further, though it's not using these linear models. I'll try to work it up over the weekend, as I'm getting pretty curious about it. :)jinazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07697776280178146413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-1142599542515296272006-03-17T07:45:00.000-05:002006-03-17T07:45:00.000-05:00"Nutty" only in a relative sense, and speaking as ..."Nutty" only in a relative sense, and speaking as one nut to another.<BR/><BR/>When one considers the fiasco of new stadiums in Milwaukee, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati ("if you build it, we will win"), the statistical insignificance of that factor seems to make sense. I was hoping that we were the exception, though. <BR/><BR/>I wonder if it's related to how early each team jumped on the new stadium bandwagon. Baltimore and Cleveland, first movers in the retro-stadium trend, both had enormous spikes in attendance and performance after their new stadiums were built. But as you say, Chicago and Toronto had new stadiums even earlier than that. Hmmm...<BR/><BR/>(I'm not sure that Toronto counts, since SkyDome is essentially an upgraded multi-use stadium like the cookie-cutter trio of Busch, Riverfront and Three Rivers. Not exactly cutting-edge in ballpark experience, retractable roof or not.)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13441809988487585009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-1142559632016940372006-03-16T20:40:00.000-05:002006-03-16T20:40:00.000-05:00Also, thanks for the feature on your page! It's v...Also, thanks for the feature on your page! It's very flattering and appreciated (even if I am nutty! :> ). -jjinazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07697776280178146413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-1142559569101022962006-03-16T20:39:00.000-05:002006-03-16T20:39:00.000-05:00I did a little bit of playing around with the stad...I did a little bit of playing around with the stadium age data, but it's not looking too promising.<BR/><BR/>I tried adding the years since a stadium was built or massively remodelled into the analysis. As it turns out, there was very little relationship between this new variable and attendance (non-significant, P=0.56), even after controlling for city size and winning. I also tried eliminating Fenway and Wrigley from the dataset since they are somewhat odd cases.<BR/><BR/>I think the problem is that there is really very little spread in the data. 16 teams have built new stadiums since the Camden Yards was built in '92, which is often credited with setting off the new stadium craze (although the White Sox and the Blue Jays received new stadiums in '89 and '91), which is over half of all teams. <BR/><BR/>I'm also not sure how long the attendance craze lasts. Maybe it's only detectable for a few years? A better evaluation of this would be to compare attendance before and after each new stadium to see how much a boost they cause. I'll probably revisit this at some point, but for now I'm going to put it on hold. :( -JinAZjinazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07697776280178146413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-1142546404697911872006-03-16T17:00:00.000-05:002006-03-16T17:00:00.000-05:00That makes a lot of sense. I can't wait to see how...That makes a lot of sense. I can't wait to see how the new-stadium factor plays out in your further analyses. Thanks again.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13441809988487585009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-1142544937305306642006-03-16T16:35:00.000-05:002006-03-16T16:35:00.000-05:00I hate to poke holes in this, but Boston's one of ...I hate to poke holes in this, but Boston's one of the few that I'm a bit wary of right now in this analysis. Fenway Park has the lowest capacity of any ballpark in the major leagues at 33,871, which gives a maximum attendance (assuming 81 games) of 2,743,551/year. Their attendance last year was 2,813,354, which is higher than should be possible (not sure if that includes postseason or not). If nothing else, it indicates that attendance in Boston has probably peaked until they get a new park. I wouldn't be surprised to see them up near the leaders once they move. But who knows? -jjinazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07697776280178146413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-1142544044575070162006-03-16T16:20:00.000-05:002006-03-16T16:20:00.000-05:00Wow. Great insights. To me, the most surprising it...Wow. Great insights. <BR/><BR/>To me, the most surprising item here is that the Boston Red Sox have--statistically--the most-average local fan base, with the smallest residual attendance (absolute value). Say what you want about the diehards in Red Sox Nation, but the locals are not significantly more dyed-in-the-wool than anyone else, given the various factors that went into your analysis.<BR/><BR/>Thanks, J.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13441809988487585009noreply@blogger.com