Iwritecode

I'm sure that's what they were referring to. They do a list like this every year but sometimes some of their "facts" are a real stretch.

There was?

In 2006 the Sox had just under 3 million fans and the Cubs had just over 3 million. If both teams are good, there are plenty of people willing to go to the games. It took the Twins opening a new stadium to break the 3 million mark for the first time ever. And that quickly wore off as they've gone down almost every year since.

The Sox are absolutely in a major market. But the fan base is simply a typical fan base. You can't simply compare us with other major market fan bases because they they've all had a lot more recent success. You have to compare us with every other team in MLB (except the anomaly that is the Cubs). And when you do that, we really aren't any different. Team is bad = lower attendance. Team is good = higher attendance. I'm not even sure what we are arguing anymore...

The Red Sox and Cardinals aren't really anomalies though. Historically, their attendance falls pretty much in line with the success/failure of their teams. But they've have a lot more success than failure over the last couple of decades, and their attendance figures show that.

It's the same type of fan base a lot of teams have.

Which should be not be surprising at all.

My question is how do you propose to fix it? How do you make people want to show up and spend money on a team that hasn't won anything for a long time? AFAIK, the Cubs are the only MLB team that managed to do it, but they are the exception, not the rule. If it takes being owned by a major newpaper and having their games played on an nationally televised super station to do it then it's probably not going to happen.

As the Cubs have shown over the years, the location of the stadium and how many fans fill it every year doesn't correlate at all to how good the team that plays inside it is.

I'd call 4 consecutive years in the playoffs and one WS championship pretty successful. Also the Astros who went through a similar rebuild are in their 3rd playoff appearance in the last 4 years and have a shot at the WS again.

I was just supplying additional information to the post. Also Cleveland played nearly 50% of their games against the ALC. The Sox only played 20% of their games against the ALE. So it's not much of a comparison.

They were 49 - 27 against the ALC and 42 - 44 against the rest of the league.

You sound a little like our network guy. He says he knows just enough about coding to be dangerous. Bmags gave a good example of how his degree doesn't necessarily relate directly to his job. I'm sure there are a lot of people out there that simply have skills that they can apply to various different jobs and then they learn the rest while working. Sometimes employers look to see that you have a degree in anything simply because they want to know that you have the drive and ability to achieve something beyond HS. It's not a guaranteed of success. And I'm sure there are plenty of successful people without degrees. But I know the studies show that on average, those with degrees make more money over their lifetimes. The question I have is would making it free for everyone devalue it's worth? Would college degrees eventually be looked at like HS degrees where pretty much everyone has one and it's not really that special anymore?

I've heard of a lot of people that went to college for one thing, then ended up in a career that's completely different.

We haven't beaten it to death in a few months. I guess it was time...

Taylor Swift convinced a whole lot of people to register to vote.

A long but interesting read. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying

I'm honestly surprised that there isn't some sort of rule against having the ivy in the field of play where it can obscure the ball like it does. I'm also surprised they aren't made to have any sort of padding on the brick wall.

You mean the game going on right now? Or who is pitching tomorrow for whoever loses?

I don't even think I have 52 left. ?

Guess I'll be buying a new HD for my PS4. https://www.engadget.com/2018/09/27/red-dead-redemption-2-will-be-a-massive-105gb-download/

That's close, but not exactly what I'm looking for. I want the WAR for all the players drafted #1 overall for say the last 20 years. Then the war for all the players drafted #2 overall, ect... I'm guessing the numbers between the guys from #3 wouldn't be all that much better than the guys from #5 or #6. It would be simple enough to do, just time consuming.

I wonder if there's ever been a study on the significance of where exactly a player was drafted. Like take the WAR of all the players drafted in the top 10 and see how much of a difference there really is. I suspect it would be pretty small.

I accidentally killed my horse so many times in RDR.