Zero.Point.Zero

[revo]

When I was 25, I had a Nielsen box in my apartment. I always wondered what kind of havoc I caused on the ratings when I would pass out and leave the TV on all night.

"Wow, some guy watched Uncle Floyd for 8 straight hours??"

[Kevin Seitzer]

"Wow, some guy watched Uncle Floyd for 8 straight hours??"

I hear the crucial 18-39 demographic really likes Uncle Floyd.

[joncarlos]

When I was 25, I had a Nielsen box in my apartment. I always wondered what kind of havoc I caused on the ratings when I would pass out and leave the TV on all night.

We had one about 5 years ago. They took it away because we didn't watch the right things. We watched Yankee games every night (and lived in Pittsburgh) so we were screwing up their sample.

[Bob Kohm]

I am not sure what market wouldn't be lost by a team that has lost so many games multiple seasons in a row. There wasn't a problem when they had good teams. I don't think there is any issue there that getting the TV mess fixed and winning games wouldn't resolve. It sure sounds like your plan is more based upon your relative like of the areas you discuss.

Not at all, Cave. You have a team with basement level merchandising, lousy attendance, poor ratings even before this mishap. You have areas with fanbases that are hungry for a team-- which Houston has shown itself not to be. How is this situation markedly different from the Montreal to Washington move? If you want to argue that the Astros may have a decent farm system and some promise on the horizon, outstanding-- that gives their new market even more reason to be excited. In Houston? It's going to take a 90 win season to even begin to wake up what's left of a fanbase that has clearly moved on from this team. Why not start from +10 with a rebuilt Astros in SLC or the Carolinas rather than -10 in Houston when you can simply reach back out to Houston ten years from now and reclaim that market with fans who actually would be excited at the prospect of having a ball team?

[Kevin Seitzer]

Not at all, Cave. You have a team with basement level merchandising, lousy attendance, poor ratings even before this mishap.

You're entitled to your own harebrained ideas, but you're not entitled to your own facts. Attendance averaged 2.8 million per year from 1999 through 2008. That's above average attendance, hardly lousy.

[cavebird]

Not at all, Cave. You have a team with basement level merchandising, lousy attendance, poor ratings even before this mishap. You have areas with fanbases that are hungry for a team-- which Houston has shown itself not to be. How is this situation markedly different from the Montreal to Washington move? If you want to argue that the Astros may have a decent farm system and some promise on the horizon, outstanding-- that gives their new market even more reason to be excited. In Houston? It's going to take a 90 win season to even begin to wake up what's left of a fanbase that has clearly moved on from this team. Why not start from +10 with a rebuilt Astros in SLC or the Carolinas rather than -10 in Houston when you can simply reach back out to Houston ten years from now and reclaim that market with fans who actually would be excited at the prospect of having a ball team?

I have to disagree with a lot of this:

1. One huge difference between this and Montreal is the presence of new ownership with a desire to keep the franchise in Houston. Also, they have a relatively new and decent stadium that is not actually physically falling down, as was the case in Montreal.

2. Why wouldn't a contending team in Houston that is a little short of 90 wins draw the fans back? Do you have some mind-reading ability with Astros fans? I doubt they start at -10. Sure, any time you move somewhere new there is a bump, so maybe the other location starts positive, but since Houston is much larger than your hypothetical moving destination, I doubt that helps much.

3. As for merchandising, it is hard to sell the jerseys of players who suck. I would imagine that would improve when the team improves as well.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Attendance in Pittsburgh was at the current Houston attendance levels for 9 years. Would you have advocated moving the Pirates during that time? Attendance in Kansas City has been at current Houston levels for the last 20 years. Would you advocate moving the Royals?

Moving teams might make sense in a truly disastrous situation with little hope of recovery. The situation Houston is in doesn't come close to making a move make sense.

Heck, Oakland's attendance has been at current Houston levels for the last six years. Why do you think they're trying to move to San Jose and not the new green pastures of the Carolinas?

[Bob Kohm]

Yet you seem entitled to cherry pick your stats, Mike Easy enough game to play... Let's take the last 30 years of Houston history. Want to take a guess at how many times the Astros have been in the top half of attendance for NL clubs? 9 times, and of those 30 years they have ranked exactly on the 50 percent line 4 times (7/14 or 8/16) and have never been higher than the 5th draw in the NL while ranking in the bottom third 14 times. Those are facts, Mike, and they show a consistently under-performing fanbase in a major market. The merchandising and licensing dollars stink. The TV ratings are below par. Yet you contend this team couldn't do better somewhere else? I just don't think you have the facts on your side here, Mike.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Yet you seem entitled to cherry pick your stats, Mike Easy enough game to play... Let's take the last 30 years of Houston history. Want to take a guess at how many times the Astros have been in the top half of attendance for NL clubs? 9 times, and of those 30 years they have ranked exactly on the 50 percent line 4 times (7/14 or 8/16) and have never been higher than the 5th draw in the NL while ranking in the bottom third 14 times. Those are facts, Mike, and they show a consistently under-performing fanbase in a major market. The merchandising and licensing dollars stink. The TV ratings are below par. Yet you contend this team couldn't do better somewhere else? I just don't think you have the facts on your side here, Mike.

If your point is that winning teams draw more than losing teams, well, of course. That doesn't mean that the fanbase has "underperformed" because they didn't come out to watch when the team was losing. When the team has won, the fans have come. Moving to a new, small metro area isn't going to improve that (beyond a very short-term novelty factor), on the contrary it would be revenue limiting move.

And really, in many way "underperforming" is irrelevant. If 3 million fans come out to watch the Astros when they win, and you feel like the metro area is of the size that it should be supplying 4 million fans...okay, fine. But moving to another area of the country where your ceiling is 2.5 million fans if you're winning, and you can get all 2.5 million of those fans to show up, that's not a win for the franchise.

Not to mention that moving teams around in general is a way to embitter fans. I don't think that's something that baseball should take lightly.

[cavebird]

Yet you seem entitled to cherry pick your stats, Mike Easy enough game to play... Let's take the last 30 years of Houston history. Want to take a guess at how many times the Astros have been in the top half of attendance for NL clubs? 9 times, and of those 30 years they have ranked exactly on the 50 percent line 4 times (7/14 or 8/16) and have never been higher than the 5th draw in the NL while ranking in the bottom third 14 times. Those are facts, Mike, and they show a consistently under-performing fanbase in a major market. The merchandising and licensing dollars stink. The TV ratings are below par. Yet you contend this team couldn't do better somewhere else? I just don't think you have the facts on your side here, Mike.

The TV situation is a debacle, undoubtedly, and a final mess left behind by the old ownership. Could the team do better, at least temporarily, somewhere else? Sure. That just involves leaving a bigger market and going to a smaller market where there is no reason to believe that long-term, the same thing wouldn't happen. Some areas, the South in particular, tend to do worse on baseball marketing/attendance probably due to cultural factors that put more of an emphasis on football. Should baseball therefore just give up on these areas even though overall they are doing fine? That doesn't make any sense to me.

[Bob Kohm]

I have to disagree with a lot of this:

1. One huge difference between this and Montreal is the presence of new ownership with a desire to keep the franchise in Houston. Also, they have a relatively new and decent stadium that is not actually physically falling down, as was the case in Montreal.

2. Why wouldn't a contending team in Houston that is a little short of 90 wins draw the fans back? Do you have some mind-reading ability with Astros fans? I doubt they start at -10. Sure, any time you move somewhere new there is a bump, so maybe the other location starts positive, but since Houston is much larger than your hypothetical moving destination, I doubt that helps much.

3. As for merchandising, it is hard to sell the jerseys of players who suck. I would imagine that would improve when the team improves as well.

As you know, Adam, I live in Washington and over the past several years have seen a Houston-level team move into the city. The Expos moved into a decrepit stadium (RFK) with a lousy team and, to make matters worse than the Astros, effectively without a farm system (after MLB took over the team they effectively neglected the player development apparatus entirely). The DC area was completely abuzz with the Nats coming to town and put up with a few years of bad baseball on the way to having what is now a pretty good team in a pretty good stadium. Move the Astros to a city that will build a new Stadium and that has a fresh, excited fanbase and you'll see people in the stands for 75 win baseball for a few years while the team improves. We've seen what that level of play garners in Houston, haven't we? MLB as an entity has seen its place in American's sports interest slip over the years, and the Astros are no more or less a victim than that than most teams. The problem is that the organization has been a local laughingstock for so long now that it doesn't take a mind-reader to see that they will need to do something extraordinary to win back even their eroded fanbase.

I really don;t see an argument here beyond passion on the other side. you have a team below water in a historically mediocre to poor market on the one hand and several acceptable markets who would immediately boost the economic fortunes of the team on the other and then support them at an appropriate level when they succeed. While that goes on Houston redevelops a desire for baseball in their town which can be satsified in the mid-range future with a similar bump.

[cavebird]

As you know, Adam, I live in Washington and over the past several years have seen a Houston-level team move into the city. The Expos moved into a decrepit stadium (RFK) with a lousy team and, to make matters worse than the Astros, effectively without a farm system (after MLB took over the team they effectively neglected the player development apparatus entirely). The DC area was completely abuzz with the Nats coming to town and put up with a few years of bad baseball on the way to having what is now a pretty good team in a pretty good stadium. Move the Astros to a city that will build a new Stadium and that has a fresh, excited fanbase and you'll see people in the stands for 75 win baseball for a few years while the team improves. We've seen what that level of play garners in Houston, haven't we? MLB as an entity has seen its place in American's sports interest slip over the years, and the Astros are no more or less a victim than that than most teams. The problem is that the organization has been a local laughingstock for so long now that it doesn't take a mind-reader to see that they will need to do something extraordinary to win back even their eroded fanbase.

I really don;t see an argument here beyond passion on the other side. you have a team below water in a historically mediocre to poor market on the one hand and several acceptable markets who would immediately boost the economic fortunes of the team on the other and then support them at an appropriate level when they succeed. While that goes on Houston redevelops a desire for baseball in their town which can be satsified in the mid-range future with a similar bump.

I don't see anything to your argument other than a general belief that it is good to move franchises around for the short-term bump that a team in a new area gets and an identification of the Astros as a team that is not doing well at the moment. I don't see any basis for your theory that taking the Astros away from Houston after the leanest years are nearing an end and before an upswing would somehow cause Houston to redevelop a desire for baseball. I would think that would cause the opposite. If that theory made sense, shouldn't a team be put in Montreal now?

[Kevin Seitzer]

As you know, Adam, I live in Washington and over the past several years have seen a Houston-level team move into the city. The Expos moved into a decrepit stadium (RFK) with a lousy team and, to make matters worse than the Astros, effectively without a farm system (after MLB took over the team they effectively neglected the player development apparatus entirely). The DC area was completely abuzz with the Nats coming to town and put up with a few years of bad baseball on the way to having what is now a pretty good team in a pretty good stadium. Move the Astros to a city that will build a new Stadium and that has a fresh, excited fanbase and you'll see people in the stands for 75 win baseball for a few years while the team improves. We've seen what that level of play garners in Houston, haven't we? MLB as an entity has seen its place in American's sports interest slip over the years, and the Astros are no more or less a victim than that than most teams. The problem is that the organization has been a local laughingstock for so long now that it doesn't take a mind-reader to see that they will need to do something extraordinary to win back even their eroded fanbase.

I really don;t see an argument here beyond passion on the other side. you have a team below water in a historically mediocre to poor market on the one hand and several acceptable markets who would immediately boost the economic fortunes of the team on the other and then support them at an appropriate level when they succeed. While that goes on Houston redevelops a desire for baseball in their town which can be satsified in the mid-range future with a similar bump.

You clearly like the idea of screwing fanbases over by moving their teams around willy-nilly. I see that as a bad idea on its face, and one that needs to be justified with a lot more than pie-in-the-sky ideas about how some new city might lovingly support a team. There are cases where that does happen, but it's not a given. There are teams that are a LOT more interested in moving than the Astros, and you don't see them moving to these new markets you like. Maybe the grass really isn't greener in those markets.

Having said that, your comparison to the Nationals move is wrong on at least a couple points, the second one being a key problem with all your thinking.

1. The Astros farm system was in worse shape than the Expos/Nationals.

2. The DC metro area was a much better market than any of the places currently available.

[Bob Kohm]

If your point is that winning teams draw more than losing teams, well, of course. That doesn't mean that the fanbase has "underperformed" because they didn't come out to watch when the team was losing. When the team has won, the fans have come.

But they haven't. In 14 of the seasons over those 30 years where the Astros have been .500 or better, they've finished at the 50% or worse line in attendance. Those years include 1986 (Lost NLCS, 7/12), 1997 (Lost LDS, 8/14), 1998 (Lost LDS, 8/16) and 1999 (Lost LDS, 8/16).. and they just barely peeped above the bottom 50% in 2005 when they made the Word Series and yet were 7/16 in NL attendance. That's pretty robust evidence of a team with a lackluster fanbase over the long term, no? Those numbers also include Minute Maid Park years. Hell, the year that Minute Maid opened (2002), the team went 84-78 and were still in the bottom half for attendance (9/16), even with the winning team and brand new park.

Big market vs. small market? This is a team that in 2012 was outdrawn by a similarly crappy Colorado team, by Pittsburgh and KC, by Cleveland and Minnesota. Those teams all sucked that year, too, Mike. The potential for higher revenues over the long term if all you go by is market size favor Houston, of course-- but there's no need to stick it out long term when you can reap short and mid-term benefits from the Astros club somewhere else and reap better long term benefits from a new team in Houston ten years down the road without the baggage and drag on fanbase that the Astros embody. You open a new, profitable market while a market that should turn a future profit reinvigorates and prepares to hand you that profit. Just doesn't seem all that harebrained, Mike

[Moonlight J]

Attendance is a poor indicator of the health of a franchise. This is where teams get their revenue streams from. Houston is doing rather well despite the attendance/ratings