Study: Small Market Fans Should Quit Whining
An article in today’s WSJ previews the upcoming book “The Baseball Economist: The Real Game Exposed,” by Prof. J.C. Bradbury of Kennesaw State University in Georgia. It sounds like a valuable contribution to the body of work pioneered by Bill James and Palmer & Thorn, and most famously chronicled by Michael Lewis in Moneyball. On the issue of the benefits of larger markets to their home teams, Professor Bradbury’s regression analysis shows that every incremental 1.58 million residents in a market yields one incremental win for the team. A win is a win (tautologically speaking), but clearly the magnitude of the market size advantage is dwarfed by the impact of deciding whether or not to spend $3 million on a declining Chan Ho Park, or multiples of that to bring geriatric former Cy Young winners to the Bronx.
February 16th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
This only supports my personal belief that the “best” way to address any revenue discrepancy based on geography is to allow teams to change their geographic locations if they so choose. If New York represents a better opportunity for the Brewers than Milwaukee, then let them move there and stop whining (assuming that they are). As NYC handled three teams fifty years ago, it’s not a stretch to presume they could do so again. I imagine any team coming in would face an uphill battle against the brand identity enjoyed by the Yankees and the Mets… um… well, the Yankees - but if they’d be better off fighting that battle, rather than facing no competition in the greater Wisconsion area for brand identity, then let them go. I mean really, how can we expect a pro sports franchise to develop brand identity and related revenue streams in Wisconsin? (Oh, wait, Green Bay’s in Wisconson, isn’t it? Well, they don’t really get local support, do they?) Similarly, although Boston specifically - and New England generally - supported two teams fifty years ago, allow another team to move into New England and cultivate this fertile market. The Red Sox brand may pose a bit of an obstacle - but if the Royals franchise feels it could operate better competing in the same market as the Red Sox rather than where they are now… then let them.
An additional benefit of this structure would be to shut up the whiny fans who complain that they “can’t afford to bring a family of four to the ballgame… boo-hoo”. The Royals would undoubtedly be a cheaper ticket, as they’d need to be to start drawing audiences - and given that Fenway is sold out before the season begins (at such exhorbinant prices… yet *somebody* is paying it), there will clearly be plenty of people willing to go, right? There’s no seats available at current (apparently “high”) ticket prices - yet the Whiners would have us believe that *lowering* the prices would make it “easier” for them to get into a game. Um… yeah… right.
I missed the Constitutional Amendment which guarantees that a Boston Red Sox baseball game should be “affordable for a family of four”… however that’s actually quantified. Similarly, I missed the other Constitutional Amendment which states that professional leagues should become socialist entities in order that every American citizen is able to follow their local franchise and truly believe they have a chance of winning this year, regardless of the level of competence in their front office. I missed the Wolf Blitzer reports on those very important governmental machinations, as apparently they were not covered on SportsCenter.
Rather than allowing free markets to reign, it’s clearly more desirable that we set artificial limits on ticket prices and players salaries so that the ignorant masses believe it makes things better for them selfishly… er, personally. Ironically, employing these two approaches would only serve to benefit two non-fan parties - the owners, and the scalpers.
But hey… it takes some effort to think things through, and it’s far easier to blame the lack of a salary cap for one’s franchise failings as opposed to the lack of intelligence in the front office… and it’s far easier to blame high ticket prices for the lack of ticket availability as opposed to the high demand.
Okay, I’m done now.