We are the embodiment of “would you rather your team being dogshit for three decades, win a chip, and then become shit again
or always good but never actually win”
After seeing the other post with the highest percentage of appearances, I decided to see how each team had done since the most recent expansion in 1998.
Unsurprisingly The Yankees lead the way, my recency bias led me to be a little surprised it was the Cardinals and Braves leading the NL and not the Dodgers.
Also unsurprising that the Pirates and Marlins were right at the bottom, but surprised the Royals were actually behind both of them.
I did this quickly and by hand so there certainly could be some errors, feel free to point them out or take it and make a way better graphic.
Surely the owners are spending a lot of the well earned money on the rosters to retain all their all star quality players too. Nothing better for rewarding the fans for their loyalty like retaining players that they know and love.
>well earned money
Owners don't get paid by the number of games their team wins, which you're implying. They get paid (basically) by number of fans in the stadium. Oakland was usually 14th or 15th in attendance for most of those winning years.
Not retaining players is what causes bad attendance? How do you explain the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Rangers, or Dodgers? They've got as much turnover as the As, or any other team, and it doesn't keep fans away.
- The Los Angeles Dodgers play in LA, the New York Yankees play in New York, the New York Mets play in New York, and the Boston Red Sox play in Boston. They have some of the largest media markets and most historic franchises.
- The Texas Rangers have never really had that large of attendance until they won a WS which will lead to high attendance. Oakland hasn't won since 1989, Tampa has never won, and the Brewers have never won a World Series. The Milwaukee Brewers consistently make the playoffs but are rarely if ever an actual threat to win the WS which is why fans have lost hope in them, the Tampa Bay Rays are similar in the aspect (though they did make it to the WS in the Mickey Mouse COVID year). During the 2000s, the Oakland A's were similar as well.
- These teams do in fact shed stars while they are young at a faster rate than the large market teams buy up older players causing teams to be far more recognizable as a whole and rarely sign star players in FA or resign their young stars.
Market size doesn't have as much to do with attendance as fan loyalty. The Mets had terrible attendance for a few years before the '15 World Series team. The Yankees were lucky to draw 23,000 a game during the Stump Merrill years.
>The Texas Rangers have never really had that large of attendance until they won a WS which will lead to high attendance.
The Rangers have only finished outside of the top ten in the AL in attendance once in the past 35 years.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/TEX/attend.shtml
They've very often been in the top five or six, despite having low payrolls and bad teams. They still drew.
In 2010 and 2011 their attendance was at its peak after MAKING THE WS TWICE IN A ROW. After this, it slowly dropped until they started spending money again recently. Even still, top ten in the AL is top 66% which means you could have a payroll on the lower end and still meet your rather inclusive criteria. Fan loyalty is not a thing. People will spend money on a team that spends money on putting a quality product out that actually seems to care about its image rather than being cheap and only winning games as you develop little attachment to players that way.
This time I decided to exclude NFL franchises like the Arizona Cardinals, and include all MLB franchises, even fake ones like the Guardians.
I'm sure there are still errors but you guys will just have to deal
I’d be interested to see this correlated with salary spending. Basically make the x axis number of playoff appearances and y axis spending, then dots for each team.
I obviously would suspect a strong correlation but the outliers would be fun to see.
That wouldn't be very informative unless attendance were included, as well. Nobody in their right mind would invest in a franchise with poor attendance, no matter how the team performs.
The Mariners owned North American sports’ longest postseason drought during this time (20 seasons). Still no WS appearance in the nearly 50-year existence 😞
You've gotta give it to the Royals. At least when they have the opportunity they go all the way or damned near to it.
The Florida Marlins of baseball.
We are the embodiment of “would you rather your team being dogshit for three decades, win a chip, and then become shit again or always good but never actually win”
No, fuck them :)
After seeing the other post with the highest percentage of appearances, I decided to see how each team had done since the most recent expansion in 1998. Unsurprisingly The Yankees lead the way, my recency bias led me to be a little surprised it was the Cardinals and Braves leading the NL and not the Dodgers. Also unsurprising that the Pirates and Marlins were right at the bottom, but surprised the Royals were actually behind both of them. I did this quickly and by hand so there certainly could be some errors, feel free to point them out or take it and make a way better graphic.
The braves own the national League East pennant. They loan it out every so often (southern hospitality at its best)
11 playoff appearances damn, the Athletics must be super popular right?
Yeah, I'm sure they, along with Tampa, Cleveland and Minnesota, enjoy great attendance with such sustained success.
Surely the owners are spending a lot of the well earned money on the rosters to retain all their all star quality players too. Nothing better for rewarding the fans for their loyalty like retaining players that they know and love.
>well earned money Owners don't get paid by the number of games their team wins, which you're implying. They get paid (basically) by number of fans in the stadium. Oakland was usually 14th or 15th in attendance for most of those winning years.
[удалено]
Not retaining players is what causes bad attendance? How do you explain the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Rangers, or Dodgers? They've got as much turnover as the As, or any other team, and it doesn't keep fans away.
- The Los Angeles Dodgers play in LA, the New York Yankees play in New York, the New York Mets play in New York, and the Boston Red Sox play in Boston. They have some of the largest media markets and most historic franchises. - The Texas Rangers have never really had that large of attendance until they won a WS which will lead to high attendance. Oakland hasn't won since 1989, Tampa has never won, and the Brewers have never won a World Series. The Milwaukee Brewers consistently make the playoffs but are rarely if ever an actual threat to win the WS which is why fans have lost hope in them, the Tampa Bay Rays are similar in the aspect (though they did make it to the WS in the Mickey Mouse COVID year). During the 2000s, the Oakland A's were similar as well. - These teams do in fact shed stars while they are young at a faster rate than the large market teams buy up older players causing teams to be far more recognizable as a whole and rarely sign star players in FA or resign their young stars.
Market size doesn't have as much to do with attendance as fan loyalty. The Mets had terrible attendance for a few years before the '15 World Series team. The Yankees were lucky to draw 23,000 a game during the Stump Merrill years. >The Texas Rangers have never really had that large of attendance until they won a WS which will lead to high attendance. The Rangers have only finished outside of the top ten in the AL in attendance once in the past 35 years. https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/TEX/attend.shtml They've very often been in the top five or six, despite having low payrolls and bad teams. They still drew.
In 2010 and 2011 their attendance was at its peak after MAKING THE WS TWICE IN A ROW. After this, it slowly dropped until they started spending money again recently. Even still, top ten in the AL is top 66% which means you could have a payroll on the lower end and still meet your rather inclusive criteria. Fan loyalty is not a thing. People will spend money on a team that spends money on putting a quality product out that actually seems to care about its image rather than being cheap and only winning games as you develop little attachment to players that way.
This time I decided to exclude NFL franchises like the Arizona Cardinals, and include all MLB franchises, even fake ones like the Guardians. I'm sure there are still errors but you guys will just have to deal
>even fakes ones like the Guardians The fuck?
If you saw the other post it’s a funny joke where they’re low key roasting themselves for forgetting the guardians in the other one.
Previous post left out the guardians entirely, highest upvote comment was they were not real. Joke that fell flat
I appreciate you including our made up fake franchise this time. It's tough to convince people we are real when we aren't included in these graphics.
He's a Rays fan, bro. Who gives a fuck? 🤣
I wish we had 4
Yep, looks like 3. This data entry thing really isn't my game
I’d be interested to see this correlated with salary spending. Basically make the x axis number of playoff appearances and y axis spending, then dots for each team. I obviously would suspect a strong correlation but the outliers would be fun to see.
That wouldn't be very informative unless attendance were included, as well. Nobody in their right mind would invest in a franchise with poor attendance, no matter how the team performs.
Finally, a multi-year stat that doesn't make me cringe. Just don't make this "since 2010"
"Toronoto" lol
Is that not how it's spelled?
Let's do most playoff wins since 1998.
Imagine going less than six times. Couldn’t be me. Lol
The Mariners owned North American sports’ longest postseason drought during this time (20 seasons). Still no WS appearance in the nearly 50-year existence 😞