Attendance and Hitting
I have been wondering: how does attendance affect hitting performance?
By now we've grown used to seeing guys hit poorly once we acquire them, and seemingly hit well once they leave. Recall 2009: Matt Holliday performs okay-but-not-to-his-standards for us, then tears it up for St. Louis. Jason Giambi looked like he was completely washed up; but since then, even after adjusting for the Coors effect, is still doing all right for his age.
How much of this can be attributed causally to low attendance and lack of atmosphere at the Coliseum? Continued after the jump
Lest I give you false hope, I have not had time to carry out my own statistical analysis of this issue. So I don't know the answer to the question. But I will comment on a few things that perhaps can inspire someone else to do so.
My hypothesis is that: even though the Coliseum is a pitcher's park, at least part of its run-suppressing effect lately is due to sparse crowds and lack of buzz at games. I think this would hurt both teams' hitting, since players just wouldn't feel amped for the game. I even suspect that this hurts the A's more than visitors, since they see it (demoralizingly) day in and day out - though not to the extent of eliminating home field advantage.
Econometrically, it takes some care to discern the causal effect. Simple park factor stats lump together the objective pitcher-friendliness of the park and the "lack of buzz" effect. And we can't simply compare high-attendance games vs. low-attendance games either, since certain teams systematically outdraw others (think Yankees vs. Marlins), and that introduces other factors. Ideally, we would need a controlled experiment where we change nothing else about a game except the attendance, and see how that affects hitting performance. That is, "Marlins with small crowd" vs. "Marlins with big crowd"; "Yankees with small crowd" vs. "Yankees with big crowd."
EDIT: Thanks to those bloggers who have taken an initial look at the stats. A simple correlation between hitting and attendance is a place to start, though unfortunately not fully informative, since it can't distinguish the direction of causation (better hitting --> higher attendance or vice versa). mendelbob's observation that the year-to-year correlation is stronger than the in-season correlation shows the not-too-surprising effect that fans respond to winning. Now the key question is how much of the in-season correlation is a causal result, and not just "in-season" fan response to team success.
In a perfect world, there are a million and one things to control for. But possibly there is a creative and simple way (insrumental variable, anyone?) to answer the question in "mostly" sound technique. Anyone feel up to the task?
30 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Yes, definitely an issue
Hard to separate the simultaneous causation!
if i remember correctly
there were some years in the mid-90’s when our offense was actually quite explosive, but there was no pitching at all. the stands were always empty then too.
Zito: You ever think about the space time continuum?
Huddy: Uh... no.
here's a good example, 1996
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/OAK/1996.shtml
861 runs scored; 1.1 mil in attendance (last in AL)
Zito: You ever think about the space time continuum?
Huddy: Uh... no.
and then there's this, 2000
947 runs scored; 1.6 mil (11th in the AL)
in other words, in what was by far the best offensive year ever in oakland attendance was still pretty bad.
Zito: You ever think about the space time continuum?
Huddy: Uh... no.
The A's teams of the late 90's
I hear had lots of offense, but that didn’t translate at the gate?
The Gnats across the bay have a lousy offense?
by sf drift king on Jul 7, 2011 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions
if anyone feels like running the correlation (and probably finding that there isn't one)
attendance per year
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/OAK/attend.shtml
yearly stats
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/OAK/
Zito: You ever think about the space time continuum?
Huddy: Uh... no.
some quick observations based on looking at the attendance numbers
winning doesn’t always increase attendance. 1974 we won the WS and were 11th of 12 in AL.
major and sustained drop-off aftern 1975 (the sell-off?)
jump in 81 and 82 (billy ball)
huge jump in 89-92 (bash bros at their best)
major and sustained drop from 93 to 2001. (what happened then? when was mount davis put up?)
substantial jump in 2001 through 2005. (why not 2000?)
really crappy since 2005. why so bad in 2006? the tarp?
Zito: You ever think about the space time continuum?
Huddy: Uh... no.
just to keep responding to myself
mount davis went up in 1996
the tarp went up in 2006
Zito: You ever think about the space time continuum?
Huddy: Uh... no.
1993 To 2000
Weren’t very successful years (mediocre) but in 2000 we got much better and won 102 games in 2001.
Hm
Hm, maybe. But I think attendance would still show some correlation with stats, especially 1-year-lagged stats. At least these days, season ticket sales are highly related to how a team performed last year.
But ok, I see what you mean about 2000 Oakland succeeding despite small crowds. Also I similarly echo your sentiment that Mount Davis and the tarp were serious blows to the game atmosphere. The first time I saw a picture of the Coliseum sans Mount Davis, I felt cheated by what the place has become since.
So I made a an excel chart overlaying attendance and runs scored....
I don’t know how to post a pic here, but there doesn’t seem to be a great deal of correlation.
Attendance from 75 to 80 feels in almost direct line with run production for those years (but overall team performance followed the same trajectory winning 98 games in 75 down to a historic low 54 in 79).
Though from 82 to 93 there wasn’t a great deal of variance in runs scored (low 708, high 806) but avg. attendance ranged from 15,987 in 83 to 35,805 in 90. Which would seem to imply that winning games is a much greater factor than offense.
In 2000 the club scored an Oakland high of 947 runs, but saw attendance at only 19,799.
The club did then see a 5 year run of attendance in the 26,000-27,000 a game neighborhood, but again, more than likely attributed to a team winning as run production steadily declined over that time down to 772.
Ultimately, as likely suspected, it would seem winning is a far greater driver than anything else.
see my post just below yours
winning doesn’t correlate much stronger than runs
Zito: You ever think about the space time continuum?
Huddy: Uh... no.
so i ran the stats for the 43 years in oakland
and there is a moderate correlation (r=.44; p<.01) between runs and attendance. it’s basically the same (r=.45) for wins and attendance. of course, this does nothing to reveal if offense leads to attendance or vice versa, but whatever. i had some free time and i effectively killed it.
Zito: You ever think about the space time continuum?
Huddy: Uh... no.
and curiously
the correlation is stronger for yearly attendance than for attendance per game. using attendance per game the correlations go down to .34 (runs) and .37 (wins).
Zito: You ever think about the space time continuum?
Huddy: Uh... no.
FIELD OF DREAMS
The A’s organization needs to create a better product by acquiring good hitters and players in general by any means necessary (i.e., using more money). “Build it and they will come.” Seems to have worked with the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies (ugh! I feel I need a shower now just from using those teams’ names on AN).
I think the factor missing form this equation is "star power"
While never being an attendance juggernaut, it would seem this team draws at it’s best when its got some lovable characters (who hopefully can perform).
The 2000-2003 crew was not only talented, but also a diverse mix of interesting characters. The team had a loose, fun frat boy vibe that people responded to. Every girl I know between the ages of 26 and 35 were A’s fans during that period and simply couldn’t care less about the club now.
There’s absolutely NOTHING that makes this team appeal to the masses at the moment, and fair or not that sort of appeal drives attendance. Head over the SBC on a Friday night, that place is stuffed with people who couldn’t give two shits about the game, but are there because it’s currently the “cool” thing.
When Oakland attendance really went to crap was when 1) we let go of every player fans too a liking to (Giambi, Tejada, Big 3, Byrnes, Swisher) and 2) when this team got the image that if we ever did get a guy like that again, it isn’t worth investing in them because they won’t be around very long.
People like to say “I’m rooting for the uniform”, which surely to a degree is true, but there’s gotta be some guys in that uniform that people connect to.
Ever since The Big 3 were broken up (on the heels of losing MVPs to free agency) people refuse to invest.
by AsFan72 on Jul 7, 2011 7:48 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
And yet the 1996 team had McGwire and drew very badly
I vibrated with joy that join A's. -- Kim Seong-min
by WaddellCanseco on Jul 7, 2011 8:24 AM PDT up reply actions
That's one guy (pretty only one guy of note on that club)
while coming off of seasons 68,51 and 67 wins and a league wide attendance crippling strike.
Not to mention having watched all the stars of the previous run depart....
Canseco, Lansford, Philips, Eckersley, Stewart and both Hendersons had all just recently left.
i think you have a valid point
although i was thinking “personality” more than star power. since the desmantling of the big 3 this team has had no personality. it has had rental stars (e.g. holliday), but there is little hope these days of getting attached to charismatic and productive players that will be around for a while.
Zito: You ever think about the space time continuum?
Huddy: Uh... no.
Personality is probably the better way to put it...
I’m really not a fan who’s too hung up on winning and losing (though of course I prefer the former) , I just want a group of guys that I can get behind. Whether they inspire confidence or are just fun/interesting to watch, and there just isn’t a whole lot of that going on in Oakland these days.
I also think there’s a bit of the “cheating girlfriend” thing going on as well. You know they’re going to break your heart, you know they are going to leave you, probably sooner than later, so you just don’t give all of your heart to them.
At present, I watch fewer games on TV than I watched in person just a few years ago. I keep tabs, I watch highlights, but I just can’t full invest.
For me, it's simple
just look to the team across the bay: their offense is much like ours, although I believe our lineup is better than theirs, on paper anyway… but I believe their fans and the energy they bring every night helps them win ball games. The overall ballpark experience also contributes. This may attribute to them having the best 1-run record in the league. We have the worst. We’d be in 1st place if we could figure out how to win those close games.
I was at ATT on a Monday night and that place was just electric; buzzing with energy – on a freakin Monday night! I’ve been conditioned to going to weeknight A’s games to think that Mon and Tues night games are the worst to go to because attendence is usu low, which sometimes lends itself to an atmosphere that is not engaging and “vibrant”. But that weeknight theory is just a myth. That only plays out in Oakland. I’ve found that weeknight games at ATT is just as exciting as weekend games. So, what does this all mean? It means what we already knew: we need a new stadium to be competitive. The current facility is hurting this team in more ways than one.
by sf drift king on Jul 7, 2011 12:18 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
^THIS^
It’s not the offense or even another aspect of the game like pitching or defense — as extremely good and bad as those have gotten over the years, that ain’t it. There’s enough data to show that no one comes, for the most part and certainly after the Mt. Davis monstrosity went up, if we score 900+ runs or 600+. If we lead the galaxy in ERA+ it is just as significant: nil, i.e. not at all. Obviously people did come 1989-92 but that was when the A’s ruled the sports world and the Giants were struggling to stay in SF and playing in a venue that makes the Coliseum look like Citizen’s Bank Park. People didn’t come to see the Moneyball years of 2000-2006 at the same clip as they did with the winning squads of 1989-92 once the Giants had built their place and the worm had turned towards the sickening status we see today, with the Giants ruling the Bay Area market and the A’s barely with a pulse of relevance even in the face of major motion pictures and Brad Pitt and all that.
We are so into this thing that we tend to project our intensity of fandom onto prospective customers that haven’t a clue or an interest about baseball specifically or even about sports in general. We want to make it about some metrically measurable aspect related to performance, cuz that’s what drives a lot of our thoughts and discourse about the A’s whether it’s 1973, 1988, 2001, 2011 or 3026. We are sort of the original fans that look for statistically measured yardsticks by which we can determine — in this case — the cause of the low-attendance effect. I feel we are sort of barking up the wrong tree and that the reality is much more primal and basic.
OK, all these people you see at the Giants game? They aren’t sabermetricians. They aren’t Fantasy Baseball types…. most not only don’t care about your Fantasy team, they probably wouldn’t even know what that is. They aren’t even interested or cognizant of the minutiae, not like we are. They are after an entertainment experience…as Joseph Campbell termed it in The Power of Myth, they are after an “experience of being alive.” They come to AT&T Park like it’s a gallery art opening, a Day on the Green, a concert in the park, a way to have fun and just be entertained whatever night of the week… an extension of the atmosphere and the ambiance and the cultural options they live in a legendary city like SF to partake of. The next morning when they wake up, they just remember the fun they had with their friends and the garlic fries and the Bay view and if the Giants lost, these folks in all likelihood do not even remember the score or how it got there over the course of a baseball game they saw. And they are happy as proverbial clams feeling that way.
When we play a game, there may be 5,000 people there including the damn vendors, but many if not most in the place are hip to the trip and down to obsess over the game and what’s going on in it. Although the Giants (and all teams) do have fans ostensibly similar to us, most people you see out there at Halloween House (that is to say, those 30,000 or so per game they outdraw us by) would not know OPS from the Special Ops the NSA runs to destabilize unfriendly and noncompliant foreign regimes. Us? We wake up WEEKS (hint: not Rickie) after a particular game still well aware of exactly what pitch went right or wrong in what count and to what hitter that caused the game’s outcome and trajectory to take the course it did. What you see at the Coliseum on any given night (when there isn’t a swaggly giveaway or a Yankees/Red Sox vs. Oakland affair to draw the bobblehead- and success-obsessed into the venue) is a fanbase stripped back to its essence, where only the hardcores remain.
When you examine the last 43 years, you ask yourself “Why?” Why has a World Series winning team (1974) been dead last in attendance, how is that possible? How has this franchise — one of most successful and innovative in its sport and having won multiple WS titles with some of the best players ever to put on a uniform — never been able to be consistently above 2,000,000, and has failed in 4-decades-and-change to ever reach the three million mark?
If the same lack of attendance has taken place — as it has, over multiple regimes and many different eras both of excellence and futility —you have to start to look at what the constants are in the situation, and our main and only constant besides the two-team market and the white shoes has been the concrete concentration camp we call the (O.No) Coliseum. If you look at the pattern, the wall we keep hitting seems to be the unfriendliness of the venue towards an experience of being alive, in the sense of what people in the modern day expect from an entertainment experience at the baseline to drop their dollars on it on a consistent basis.
Since Mt. Davis went up and especially since the Giants built their palace-straight-out-of-a-Tony-Bennett-ballad and the Coli’s upper deck was closed with the tarps, you have a venue that is simply not conducive towards the attraction of the casual, only-marginally-interested-in-baseball people you need to have a thriving product. Maybe back when you could see the hills this was better, but even back then more than 20,000 in the place meant ridiculous concession lines and no path of thoroughfare through those lines for people to stroll around the Coliseum venue to take in an entertainment-friendly atmosphere. So more than any transitory and shifting aspect of the product on the field — hitting, pitching, etc. — the millstone anchor around the Athletics’ franchise’s collective neck that’s dragged us to the bottom of the MLB ocean is the venue, its terminal inefficacy, its location — there’s nothing to do before/after a game in the East Oakland industrial wasteland that in no way resembles McCovey Cove and the newly-supercharged China Basin neighborhood AT&T Park catalyzed the revitalization for (and instead exposes people to a perception of poverty and unattractive degradation NOT conducive to drawing folks into an entertainment frame of mind) — everything about it screams “inadequate and insulting” to the casual fan and until we can escape there for a better place (the Diridon or Victory Court, either is fine with me at this point) things will not change no matter what or who we put on the field, I’m afraid.
OK, now that I have uplifted A’s nation with my words of unbridled, giggly optimism, it’s time for lunch.
"If we start getting into that sh*t, we might as well get out the plastic sheeting and have an orgy." --Gaijin Suketto
by emperor nobody on Jul 7, 2011 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
quite depressing, but very well said
Zito: You ever think about the space time continuum?
Huddy: Uh... no.
Its the other way around dampened offense leads to sparse crowds
Hello? You play to win the game!
Just my thoughts
A) High Player turnover- Where are your favorites from 3-4 years ago. There are only 3 guys still on this roster from 2007 one of which we brought back- Suzuki, Barton(at RC) and Harden
B) The O.Co is a dump. Plain and simple, the place is disgusting, has no flair to it, is horrible to get in and out of, food lines are way too long, which in turn makes the concourse hell to get through (I thought Arco Arena was bad) While I don’t mind the tarps as much, It really does close in the stadium more for me. Mt.Davis is horrific, plain and simple.
C) This:
RUNS: 315 / 28th out of 30th
BA: .233 / 28th out of 30th
OBP: .299 / 29th out of 30th
SLUG: .337 / 28th out of 30th
D) And I know they tried this year going after big guns, but how often have the tried in the last several years: Usually it’s guys towards the declining years, brought in to at least try to de-stagnate this offense
E) I think honestly the guys have it in their head that they are gonna lose, because there are so many powerful other clubhouses out there. It was great to see that winning streak, and that they stuck with the gold jerseys for some kind of continuity out there. As a fan I was thrilled to see that, thrilled to see Geren and his boneheaded plays gone, and honestly I was getting excited again.
F) I realize Ellis was getting older, and his bat and defense was slowing down (we thought), but honestly i saw him as a glue guy for this team, and a fan favorite and that kind of tore me down. I know several fans were right in the same boat as me. Miss you unicorn!
G) Players:
Suzuki: Is starting to lose his speed in throwing guys out. Better swings man
Rosales: In and out so much can’t get a real view on him
Weeks: Quit looking to make flashy play, and quit trying to hit it out of park
Pennington: I like his Defense, but needs better offense
Sizemore: Keep doing what you are doing: Happy with you
Dejesus: Great defense, but need bat to reawaken
Crisp: Keep doing what you are doing: Happy with you
Willingham: Keep doing what you are doing: Happy with you
Carter: You look lazy in everything I see you do, Batting and 1st base- EFFORT!
Matsui: sorry bud you just aren’t doing it for me. To go from 2010/2011 BA:.274/.209 OPS: .820/.617 we got an issue..
I look at keeping: Weeks, Pennington, Sizemore, Crisp, and Willingham
which means you need a new catcher, 1B, RF and we need to see some good power guys, Quick question, do you think Jai Miller could play right? If so, maybe its time for him.
Where is our Power first baseman though, Carter is too lackadaisical for me on both O and D, Co jack can play it, but i want some more offense out of 1st base. Catcher: Kurt you got a family now, quit trying to play every freaking day, you are beating your body up way to much (the ankle ball yesterday was nasty). And yes i know in the last couple series Zuk has been the one providing most of the offense, he’s just is very streaky when it comes to making something happen.
Founder of team Omté Caspeen
And yeah I didnt go into pitching here, because honestly I thought this was long enough and this right here
RK Team
1 Philadelphia Phillies
2 Atlanta Braves
3 Oakland Athletics
4 San Francisco Giants
5 San Diego Padres
I will not question pitching when they are in 3rd place (granted I think it should be #1, but with injuries I understand) Plain and simple if I had to pick 3 pitchers off the team that are my top 3 right now its Gio, Cahill and Bailey (Braden is close up there for me but he’s on the DL)
Founder of team Omté Caspeen

by 




























