Top Five Per Game Attendance Figures, by Season, in Royals History
- 1989 - 30,589 per game
- 1987 - 29,537 per game
- 1988 - 29,377 per game
- 1986 - 28,652 per game
- 1980 - 28,256 per game
about 2 years ago
Freneau
27 comments
0 recs |
Comments
I think between Butler and Greinke people will come out.
I’d bet we average somewhere around 30K for Greinke starts this year.
Need the everyday guys to step up though.
Only if they all take place on Friday Fireworks+Buck nights.
I used to work with an old man that told me. Son, every workplace has a dumbass, if you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
What are you trying to say?
That winning means more people will go to games?
Ridiculous.
weird that there was that late 1980s spike
which really doesn’t totally coincide with the best years
But they weren't bad by any means
1980 97-65 WS appearance
1986 76-86 3rd of 7 in division (WS win attendance bump)
1987 83-79 2nd of 7
1988 84-77 3rd of 7
1989 92-70 2nd of 7 (tied for 3rd best record in MLB, but OAK won division by 7 games!)
Now looking at how their division is currently constructed and taking into account a wildcard, where would the Royals finish?
1980 – 1st in current division by 13 games(Baltimore missed the playoffs with 100 wins! NY had 103.)
1986 – 3rd, 11 GB Detroit
1987 – 3rd in current division set up 15 GB of DET who ran away with 98 wins, but only won their division by 2 games that year
1988 – 3rd in current division by 6.5 games
1989 – 1st in current division by 12 games, 2nd best record in AL (wildcard)
If Oakland hadn’t run away maybe the Royals would have won it all again that year or at least gone to a WS. They would have faced a Toronto team with just 4 above average hitters (according to OPS+), and 1-2 above average starters (119 ERA+ for Cerutti, 109 for Stieb). Their strength was in their bullpen with Tom Henke (190 ERA+) and David Wells (153).
And then they could have faced the Giants in the Series. The Giants were carried by Will Clark (175 OPS+) and Kevin Mitchell (192). Their pitching was filthy though. At age 40, Rick Reuschel put up a 114 ERA+, and their other above average starter was Scott Garrelts with a 147. The bullpen contained closers Craig Lefferts (ERA+ 125, 20 SV), Steve Bedrosian (127, 17 SV), and Hall of Famer Goose Gossage with a 125 ERA+ and 4 SV.
The Royals offense contained 4 stars that year:
Tartabull 128 OPS+
Bo Jackson 124
G Brett 123
Eisenreich 122 OPS+
Seitzer had a 106 OPS+, but had a .387 OBP! With just 23 XBHs though, he was a singles hitter. Frank White (80), Willie Wilson (85), and Pat Tabler (80), were offensive sinkholes. I’m not sure how Tabler got that many ABs with Eisenreich, Tartabull, Willie Wilson, and Bo roaming the OF. Surely Eisenreich should have played DH over him.
But where the Royals lost the battle with Oakland was with the pitching staff. While Sabes (180 ERA+, CYA) and Gubi (128 ERA+) were excellent, Leibrandt and Floyd Bannister really struggled. It was so bad, the Royals actually converted Tom Gordon to a starter in July and either they had a 4 man rotation, or they got extremely desperate and started pitching Gordon on 3 and 4 days rest, a lot. The brutal stretch came at the end of August, 6 ER in 7 IP, 4 days rest, 3 ER in 7.2 IP, 3 days rest, 6 ER in .2 IP (yes, that was a start!), 4 days rest, 5 ER in 6.1, 3 days rest, 5 ER in 2 (these are all starts!), 3 days rest, 1 ER in 6 (gutsy!), 3 days rest, 2 ER in 1.1 (another start), 4 days rest, 2 ER in 6, season over. He went 17-9 (10-2 as a reliever!), made 7 September starts, and only won his final one. Sharp contrast to August where he was 5-1 in 6 starts.
Other pitchers of note include Steve Crawford (54 bullpen IP, 137 ERA+), and Jeff FREAKIN Montgomery who only had a 284 ERA+ that year with just 18 SV (looks like Steve Farr finished out a fair amount of games as he had 18 SV as well, Monty had 92 IP so he likely was an actual fireman, what a concept!). The Royals were 1 or 2 pitchers away from making up the difference with Oakland unfortunately. 62 of the Royals wins were credited to Sabes, Gubi, Tom Gordon, and Monty. That’s more than 2/3 of the total! Together those same 4 had 29 losses, and just 16 NDs between Saberhagen and Gubicza.
I remember listening a lot to the teams of the late 80s as they were my intro to Royals baseball.
That was too damn long… Time for bed.
by AxDxMx on Dec 1, 2009 1:47 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
I think attendance spiked all around baseball
The 70s weren’t a great era for attendance. Oakland, for example drew an average of 6,199 fans per game in 1977. The Yankees led the AL in attendance with just under 26,000 fans a game.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Who did the attendance report earlier this offseason? Was it AxDxMx?
How many individual games did the Royals go 28,000 this year?
I used to work with an old man that told me. Son, every workplace has a dumbass, if you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
Yeah, it was me.
They actually had a fair amount of them, IIRC. The problem was they had games no one wanted to be at that had less than 15,000 and that really brought the average down, though they were never in danger of averaging more than 25,000.
Amazing what the afterglow from a championship can do
The late 80s attendance surge was a direct result of the 85 championship.
Too bad Glass doesn’t understand/agree with the concept of spending money to make money.
I’m oversimplifying a bit, because the regional TV markets and the influx of cable stations really changed the financial playing field – but you get my drift. Glass should be able to at least envision his franchise approaching he STL model – moderate to slightly above avg payroll, supported by a rabid fanbase. Think 100-110k annual payroll, and annual attendance of 2.5m to 3.0m. How does he get there? Well, unfortunately, because he ran the franchise into the ground for 15 years, he needs to show good faith and bump the payroll up to that level FIRST, then the attendance would follow. Sadly, he lacks the competitive desire to do so. It’s his money, so I guess I shouldn’t blame him. On the other hand, if he reluctantly became an owner only as a favor to Mr K, or because he mistakenly thought he could change the game’s financial structure to his benefit, then I can blame him, and would advise him to get the hell out.
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
Whatever the state of competition
I’m pretty sure owning the Royals has been financially beneficial to the Glass family
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 1, 2009 11:14 AM EST up reply actions
See, that's my point
He could try harder to win, and still not kill himself financially.
Just my opinion.
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
At some point he runs into diminishing marginal returns
And I suspect he might be at that point without trying to build a StL style fan base. Let’s face it, another 10,000 fans per game on average paying an average $25 per ticket (includes parking), means just an extra $20M in revenue. While I’m sure Glass would take the $20M, he’d have to spend the $20M or more on payroll to probably get that effect. Laying out $1 to make $1 isn’t really sound business strategy.
You've got a good point
I think there is more money to be made by a continuously successful team than just additional ticket/parking revenue. That stuff is the most direct (and is the easiest to estimate), but there’s certainly going to be additional revenue from concessions, merchandise, etc. The biggie, though, is a better/bigger television deal, which the Royals will probably never be able to land because of the sparsely populated region.
Ultimately, though, it comes down to why an owner owns a sports franchise. I really don’t think any team owner should get into the game with a primary goal of making a ton of money. Almost every owner is going to have an easier and better time making money at whatever business got him to the position he was in to buy a team. Buying a pro sports team should be almost entirely for the fun/competitive aspect of it.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
"I was doing this when BJ was in his father's nutsack." -Renzo Gracie
by Sweep_the_Leg on Dec 1, 2009 3:35 PM EST up reply actions
Oh hell no.
I would buy a sports franchise, just to sell it a decade later and make out like a bandit. I wonder if anyone has ever lost money on the sale of a MLB, NFL, NHL, or NBA team? It’s all about the profits for most owners. I mean, I’d spend money on my team, but only as long as I planned to break even at a bare minimum. And that’s if I had another income source because breaking even doesn’t get you paid.
You are right that there is more revenue in merchandise and TV rights, so maybe double or triple that $20M from tickets. The point I left unsaid was that it takes a present outlay to make the future profit, and if you make the wrong choices (i.e. Guillen 3/$36M), then that payoff isn’t there. It’s risky to try to elevate the franchise by spending more money. I actually think the way the farm system is working now, that Dayton may actually be setting the team up for long term success in the 2011-2016 range. I don’t think it’s a stretch at all to say 2-3 of the Royals Top 10 Prospects could become legit stars. That’s how far they’ve come.
And that paragraph above leads to the huge disconnect that is occurring at the MLB level right now. Dayton Moore’s drafts look awesome, why the hell does the MLB team suffer so much, and sign such crappy players? Will no one good actually come to KC?
if you put all your eggs in one basket
you could spend more money on a larger number of smart, (safer), investments — more money int he draft, let veterans go, take more chances on guys like Nelson Cruz, which saves more money that can be redistributed…
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 1, 2009 4:54 PM EST up reply actions
Great point
I’ve long advocated spending 15 or 20m on one genuine superstar as a starting point towards contending. If you pick the right guy, and he stays healthy, this is actually money well spent. Just take a look at fangraphs player values – Pujols/Utley type players are “worth” a whole lot more than the number I refer to above.
As a positive side benefit, it would sorta force Moore to search harder for bargains, thus eliminating his wasteful spending on mediocre free agents that has hampered his progress to date.
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
I'm hoping that Moore will have to do bargain shopping sooner rather than later
beause he’s no longer pulling in a GM’s salary
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 1, 2009 5:57 PM EST up reply actions
You're right in saying a genuine superstar is better to sign
Would you rather get 5-9 WAR from 1 player or 4? If you get it from 1, you have 3 other positions that have yet to be added to the total. One superstar plus 3 young players could be anywhere from 5 – 15 WAR for the same price you might sign 4 average vets and only get 0 – 8 WAR total (2 WAR each on average). The upside in that scenario is clearly the superstar player and 3 cheap, young guys.
On the late 80s attendance
My recollection of this period as a vendor:
Friday and Saturday nights routinely sold out, virtually all year round. They tried to run giveaways on Sundays, but oddly that day still only averaged in the low 20ks. Monday and Thursday nights were Royals nights (half price nosebleed tickets), and they drew MORE than Sunday games. Typically, these games would draw around 30-35k – especially during the summer portion of the schedule. Only down games were Tuesday/Wednesday – but because the ticket base was so much higher than it is today, those days would still be around 20K most of the time. So much easier to reach 2.5m when you start with a 13 or 14k season ticket base, as opposed to today’s base, which I think is around only 8k-10k?
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
30.5K per game in 1989 is phenomenal
Every man, woman and child living in the city of KCMO at rthat time would have to attend 6 games a year to get to that number.
Of course—I know people outside of the city attend games, but its more of a frame of reference. Now it would be closer to 4 games a year.
I can't recall the exact data,
but I think the Royals once did an informal license plate sample of their parking lot around then; long story short, they really were a regional franchise, with something like one-fourth or even one-third of their attendance (on the weekends) coming from farther than 50 miles. This was cited as one of the main reasons artificial turf was installed – to ensure these particular fans that they could plan their weekend in KC with relatively little chance of rain ruining their trip.
Of course, that was a totally different era. There was no internet, no practical ability for fans to follow any team they wanted like they can today thanks to MLB network, MLB Media Services, etc. Basically, unless you wanted to root for the Braves or the Cubs, if you lived in Kansas or Nebraska, or even in parts of Iowa, you could only follow the Royals easily.
Mr Glass, this is a pro sports team, not a retail store - run it like one!
Really a missed opportunity
Regional sports networks have become huge and cultivating a regional market is how a city like St. Louis (which isn’t THAT much larger than KC) can operate closer to a large market franchise than a small market franchise. The Royals could be The Team for midwesterners west of Columbia had they marketed themselves better and made more games available – even if they have to pay cable providers to carry games. After all, I know a lot of people that became Braves or Cubs fans even though they were TERRIBLE in the 80s, simply because the games were on all the time before reruns of Perfect Strangers or “Beastmaster.”
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com










