Misinformation From Rick Telander
by Al Yellon on Jan 26, 2009 9:46 AM CST
in Chicago Cubs News
Email
PrintYesterday, Rick Telander put forth the following information in his Sun-Times column:
IT SEEMS CRAZY, but in 1981, the first year of the Tribune's ownership, the Cubs drew fewer than 10,000 people a game.
Attendance last season was more than 40,000 a game, a hair less than capacity.
If everything is maxed out, what do the Rickettses do to improve things?
Did we mention the World Series?
While the conclusion -- winning the World Series -- is something we all want -- the premise of this part of the article is flawed.
photo via artfiles.art.com
Let's examine the facts. Cubs attendance in 1981 was 565,637 -- 11th in the 12-team National League. Obviously, that was depressed by the strike and the horrendous play of that year's team. But there are some problems with Telander's statement. First, the average attendance wasn't "under 10,000". To get that figure, Telander must have divided the total by the number of home games in 1981 (57) to get 9,923. However, there were three home doubleheaders in 1981, so there were only 54 home dates. Thus, the actual average was 10,475.
There's one more thing that's wrong with Telander's statement. 1981 wasn't the first year of Tribune Co. ownership. The deal was approved by MLB owners on August 6, 1981, and Tribune took over officially in early September. So the first true year of Tribco ownership was 1982. Baseball was still recovering from the strike, and the Cubs, though better, were still bad, finishing 73-89. They had 79 home dates and drew 1,249,278, an average of 15,814 -- nearly a 50% increase in average attendance.
But the real problem with Telander's statement is that you can't really compare attendance figures now to attendance figures then. In 1982, MLB's average attendance was about 21,000 per game; last year it was over 34,000.
Granted that Tribune's marketing of the Cubs has been successful beyond probably even its wildest dreams, drawing millions of fans even when the team was terrible. But until 1993, the National League only reported turnstile count. A 78-84 Cubs team in 1992 reported attendance of 2,126,720, ranking fifth in the NL. The 1993 team, only a little better record-wise at 84-78, reported 2,653,763 -- more than 500,000 more fans, supposedly -- but ranked 7th in the NL. That's because in '93, teams started reporting tickets sold as the attendance figures. Overall baseball attendance "jumped" from 55 million in 1992 to 70 million in 1993 -- that's not a real jump, it's the difference in the way it was reported.
This is why the 2006 attendance figure of 3,123,215, which ranks fourth in team history, is so misleading. Late-season games were sold out early, but for many of them, fewer than half the announced crowd was actually in the ballpark. Management improved the team, and attendance in 2007 was 3,252,462 -- only a "slight" improvement, but the actual turnstile count was much higher than in 2006.
Anyway, Telander was trying to make a comparison between two things that can't really be compared, and he got a couple of basic facts wrong. Still, I'll agree with his conclusion -- we are all hoping that no matter what the attendance figures, what we want is for new ownership to bring a World Series title to the North Side.
62 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Huh?
Telander was trying to make a comparison between two things that can’t really be compared
You can’t compare 1981 attendance to 2008 attendance? You can’t compare that the upper deck used to be closed on many days then to now? You can’t compare that they were less than 40% of capacity then and at over 95% now?
Telander, who can be a poor writer, is making the point that a new owner can’t do much to increase the attractiveness of the brand. As a way of posting a metric, he shows the attendance. He’s right.
I'm well aware of the point he was trying to make.
He could have gotten his facts right.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
His facts are right
It’s not like he blew the attendance by 5,000 per game. He “blew it” by a couple of hundred. That’s less than 1% of capacity, even back then.
The data backs his point. The numbers he used are not materially different.
And, if you are “well aware of the point he was trying to make,” that implies that you agree with it but are only trying to muddy his argument with irrelevancies.
Is your problem that Telander used a denominator off by three or that he’s suggesting that the potential new owner, who you’ve already embraced, that no one knows where he’s going to be on the scale from Arte Moreno (good) to Dan Snyder (bad), doesn’t have much room to make things better?
If it’s the later, then, certainly any new owner can make the team better. The metric Telander uses does not show the area where the team can use the most improvement. That would be in scouting, drafting and developing.
I didn't know anyone even read Telander anymore.
Facts never get in the way of another poorly written column by Telander.
How can you compare
When Al points out that attendance figures reported today, are based on ticket sales — and in 1981 they weren’t, its apples and oranges.
I'd say...
If you compared true ticket sales for both eras Rick’s comparison is still valid.
If you had to choose just one characteristic that would get you through life, choose a sense of humor.
regardless what is Telander trying to say without substantiating it?
Have the Cubs hit peak revenues like in peak oil?
Possibly in the box the Cubs are in right now. It is always the plan by new owners to find ways to maximize revenues from the old box and innovate and find ways to get new revenues out of the box.
This is where skyboxes came from or clubs owning a piece of the broadcast pie, sponsorship revenues, scalping et cetera. What was mentioned in the weekend articles was the Cubs looking at ways to take on those ‘parasitic’ or opportunity revenue streams that made outside the control of the Cubs but because of the Cubs.
There is unreported attendance from the rooftops, neighborhood bars et cetera. They lose concession revenues from opportunity vendors outside the park, parking lots and on.
I could map out some revenue sources and value added things the Cubs could do. Partner with parking garages/lots and set up their own shuttle and charge. On each shuttle sell concession—-approved bag of peanuts/popcorn/ sandwiches paraphernalia. One could set up a garage/lot at the JFK and the other at or near the LSD. Shuttles get to come into the property.
Start a LLC to begin buying up the roof tops and fold them into the Cubs organization, a form of a skybox. Partner with a few neighborhood bars offer closed circuit experience value add and get a cut of the door. Small stuff but it could grow.
The others are big one Cubs Net, seat licenses
Piniella: "This is a tougher job than I thought it would be, I'm going to be honest with you."
Many of your ideas are going to be implemented.
That part of Telander’s point is correct. They are maxed out on ticket revenue. But there are many other ways to generate money. You can bet new ownership will find them.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
they have to
ticket sales are only going to go down, and to compensate, teams are going to have to lower prices. Money is going to have to come from somewhere in order to keep payroll, operations, marketing budgets the same. Pro Sports got lucky this go around because the recession didn’t get bad till late 2008. Everybody was initially in shock. Now they’ve had time to get over shock, and now the cost cutting begins. Already has, just ask Detroit. You’ll start to see the effects this year as the economy really bottoms out. this(the recession) could have the same effect on attendance and player’s salaries as the strikes did
Exactly
And in this way the Cubs as a business organization differs from other ball clubs that already have tapped into those revenue generating methods. I would be very interested in how even mechandising for the Cubs compares to other teams…I would not be surprised if they are down on the list of that one as well. As hard as that might be to believe.
I think Telander
is trying to show how they are operating at capacity on a % basis. Even though his numbers are slightly off I think he has a valid point. The upside of the 1981 Cubs and baseball in general was huge. Nowadays teams have to find outside revenue streams to stay at the top of the heap despite a full house.
I think the 50% increase in 1982....and beyond
is a result of Harey Carey joining the Northsiders and his rendition of Take Me Out To The Ball Game
If you had to choose just one characteristic that would get you through life, choose a sense of humor.
it certainly helped
The Cubs also made two playoff appearances in the ’80s.
Attendance didn't really start to jump until after 1984.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
WHAT??
attendance
198110,672
15,423
18,268
26,182
26,686
23,239
25,281
25,632
30,765
27,701
28,928
26,256
If you had to choose just one characteristic that would get you through life, choose a sense of humor.
Sorry....
avg. 1981 through 19923.
1981 10,672
1982 15,423
1983 18,268
1984 26,182
1985 26,686
1986 23,239
1987 25,281
1988 25,632
1989 30,765
1990 27,701
1991 28,928
1992 26,256
If you had to choose just one characteristic that would get you through life, choose a sense of humor.
Remember, they didn't play the full
81 home games in 1981 and 1981 was affected by the strike in terms of interest also. Look how long it took some fans to “come back” after the 1994 strike.
Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.
by blackhawk24 on Jan 26, 2009 11:22 AM CST up reply actions
I know but....
’82 to ’84 is + 11,000
If you had to choose just one characteristic that would get you through life, choose a sense of humor.
OK, the attendance jumped IN 1984.
I think you can guess the reason why.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
Yes....
but the flashback makes me cry when I keep seeing the ball go through Leon’s legs.
If you had to choose just one characteristic that would get you through life, choose a sense of humor.
Hmm.... Al uses "jump" and "1984" in the same comment and today is Eddie Van Halen's birthday?
cue the Twilight Zone music…
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Raise your hand if you got tired of that song, say by...
1987???
Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.
by blackhawk24 on Jan 26, 2009 11:48 AM CST up reply actions
Credibility
I think when you use facts to make a point, you’d better get them right.
Otherwise, your credibility can be called into question.
Hey, it's a new century!
by cowsarecool220 on Jan 26, 2009 10:20 AM CST reply actions
OMG!
This will be a much harder game to figure out who is playing, and work thru the details to get to the date…..
but it is hard to try to compare as he did. He made a valant effort, but falls short. This would be the same as comparing Babe Ruth to Barry Bonds. Eras are too different to be able to do so properly.
"I like coconuts, you can break them open and they smell like ladies lying in the sun" Widespread Panic
Yeah, he was off a little and actually I didn't really question
his numbers since they were close. Totally accurate? No. Close? Yes.
I didn’t run the numbers of pre/post counting ticket sales. Which BTW, I think only the NL does now. Think the AL still counts fannies through the turn styles; or did that change?
Just raw numbers though: Last 25 years, Cubs went from 10k to 40k average whereas MLB went from 21k to 34k. Just shows how far the Cubs came and how the ticket sales number can be misleading when taking late 2006 as an example.
I’ll say again, it will be very, very intriguing how Ricketts can maximize his new revenue streams to take the Cubs to the next stratosphere.
Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.
agreed
and it’ll be interesting to see what kind of effect the economy has on all this. If Under Armour was any indication, it may be tough for clubs and MLB in general to generate a ton of extra revenue in the near future. Selig already said the car makers are essentially out for ads this year and I’ve got to imagine they ponied up quite a bit of money.
I think the economy is going to play a huge role in the immediate future of not only the cubs but MLB and pro sports in general. It hasn’t really kicked in yet, but you can be sure, this next set of seasons for all the leagues, your going to see significant drops in attendance, revenue, and sponsorships. It will be really interesting to see what happens to the payrolls then. Already you have several high profile players not playing because they’re asking for too much.
In the cubs case, I think the payroll stays the same or even shrinks over the next couple of years till the recession ends and the economy starts to pick up again
Lets see
in 1981, the team was not sellign tickets for many reasons. to name a few:
1. less seats in WF
2. neighborhood was not as nice as it is now.
3. the economy was getting better (wasnt it in 1980 that the cars were lined up around the block witing for a chance to get some gas?)
4. team was horrible, and didnt have a name to draw by (no Ryno, Sosa, Grace, Wood, etc).
5. team didnt market worth a damn. What amount of $$$ was used for promotional use in 1981 vs now.
6. Chicago was Bears/Hawks then Cubs/Sox…now it is Cubs/Bears/Hawks.
"I like coconuts, you can break them open and they smell like ladies lying in the sun" Widespread Panic
OK, some points
1. Less seats. But 36k vs 41k doesn’t mean much when the avg draw is 10k.
2. Very true, neighborhood was lame compared to now.
3. Econ was better? Better than what, 1933? Yes. However inflation was through the roof, the cold war was huge, the peanut guy was ruining the country, the prime rate was double digits and there was that Iran thingy. BTW, the cars lining up thing you reference was the mid-70’s, during the embaro years where in a short time oil increased nearly 300% going from $3 a barrel to $11.
4. There were only a few names from that era and years leading up, but no Harry and no Ryno.
5. Very, very true.
6. Most of the teams sucked. Bears had one guy, his name was Payton. No Ditka yet, no Ryan, no punkie QB and certainly no 46 defence. Cubs, Sox sucked, Bulls sucked, ’Hawks were eh, OK.
So, with all that, what was your point?
Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.
by blackhawk24 on Jan 26, 2009 11:07 AM CST up reply actions
The strike, too, had a lot to do with it.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
my point
was there are so many variables, there is no way to put the numbers side by side and compare them. I only listed a few of the variables, and I am sure we as a group could add another 25-30 without too much hassle.
here is another, internet. how much of a change has that made to the populatiry of not the just the Cubs but baseball in whole. internet has made getting tickets easier since you do not have to stand in line in February outside WF to get your tickets, you can do so while sitting at home or work on a computer (sure if no one was going in 1981 there were tickets available…but the attendance is based on tickets collected in 1981 not total sales).
"I like coconuts, you can break them open and they smell like ladies lying in the sun" Widespread Panic
In this situation...
…to compare the two sets of data, you would have to first ‘normalize’ the data due to the difference in the reporting of the statistic in order for the result to be accurate.
"Just win tonight" - derv
The right statistics
would make the different data sets readily comparable. In fact, one could, if he were so inclined, link various conditions (status of economy, current star players, attendance metric, neighborhood conditions, etc.) to the raw attendance numbers for each year. Then, you could use various statistical regression methods to isolate which and to what degree any of these factors actually had on revenue generated. That’s something that I’d love to see, but is entirely too much work to actually do it. Thing is, I think Telander had the right idea, but in using poor statistics, he cripled his argument. We’re all discussing / debating his choice of data / “factual information” rather than debating the merits of his acutal thesis.
It might be....it could be.....it is......a home run!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by imfromzwolle on Jan 26, 2009 1:28 PM CST up reply actions
Getting facts correct is a great idea but..
In this article being close enough to correct is good enough because they are merely used to make the point that Telander wants to know what Ricketts is going to do to increase revenue. It’s a valid question and one that has been somewhat addressed. Increasing seats in Wrigley, a stadium club, the Triangle Building and potentially creating a Yawkey-way like park around Wrigley. Maybe time should be spent focusing on how that’s going to change a lot of what is seen rather than shooting down the article based on a division error and semantics when comparing how attendance is computed.
Telander doesn't really make any suggestions other than "win the World Series".
That’d be something we all would want, and yes, winning would help generate revenue — in the year AFTER, with increased souvenir sales, sponsorships, etc., everyone wanting to jump on the bandwagon.
You’re right about the suggestions you have made. Telander didn’t really do that. He was trying to be cute and didn’t get his facts correct.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
Again?
He was trying to be cute and didn’t get his facts correct.
He wasn’t trying to be cute unless you are saying that, in an attempt at journalistic fraud, he divided the total attendance by 57 instead of 54.
Someone else is taking a reasonable, inconsequential mistake and make it into a casus belli.
Tickets Sold Vs. Fannies in Seats; 1984
I’m glad that the distinction has been pointed out. That jump from about 10,500 in 1981 to about 26,000 in 1984 was remarkable. That was an actual turnstile count. After a quarter-century, 1984 still looks like the year the Cubs’ popularity really took off.
"The big possum walks late." - Harry Caray
It was the combination of cable exposure and the division title.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
I missed something here...
If turnstile avg. count was 26,182 in 1984 and the same measurement was used in 1985 with avg of 26,686 for +504 I don’t see how that shows Cubs’ popularity took off after ’84. More remarkable is ’82 through ’84 when Harry and Ryno joined the team
If you had to choose just one characteristic that would get you through life, choose a sense of humor.
Because by Memorial Day
I think the entire starting staff was on the DL. That season was a total goner before it got hot outside.
Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.
by blackhawk24 on Jan 26, 2009 12:21 PM CST up reply actions
Took Off IN 1984
I was comparing the 1984 turnstile numbers to 1981. Attendance increased by over 15,000 from 1981 to 1984. It increased by almost 8,000 from 1983 to 1984.
"The big possum walks late." - Harry Caray
Thanks You
That was my point. It took off 81 – 84 not AFTER 84
If you had to choose just one characteristic that would get you through life, choose a sense of humor.
slow day//week, huh?
Erm, well if we are going to call Milton Bradley nicknames, mine is Fischer Price: yes, you heard it here first..
It cannot be March soon enough.
"That’s the great thing about baseball, you never know what’s going to happen till you get the final out." — Lou Piniella
by drewishdrewid on Jan 26, 2009 12:20 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
You mean February!
First game is Feb. 25!
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
by Al Yellon on Jan 26, 2009 12:38 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
heh
I’m looking forward to it. Less than 30 days!
"That’s the great thing about baseball, you never know what’s going to happen till you get the final out." — Lou Piniella
by drewishdrewid on Jan 27, 2009 10:15 AM CST up reply actions
BR list the Cubs' 1981 attendance as 9,752 per game
Out of curiousity, I look at the Cubs attendance figures on baseball reference. The Cubs 1981 per game attendance is listed as being 9,752 on both the Cubs attendance page as well as the 1981 NL season summary. Maybe Al should send Sean Forman an angry email, as his site very well may have been Telander’s source.
Do we know if the 565,637 total attendance figure already includes those double-headers twice? In other words, is Al wrong in assuming that it doesn’t? The answer could be found by going through the schedule and adding the totals together to see if it basically squares with the 565k total. Anybody got some time on their hands?
"Some people will look at a glass of water and say it's half-empty, while another guy will look at it and say it's half-full. A Cubs fan looks at the same glass and asks, "When's it gonna spill?" - Mike Royko
Interesting.
I counted the number of dates — there were three doubleheaders. In those days there were no split DH — all of those were conventional DH. If anyone wants to correct my count, feel free.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
Hmm...
So, it wasn’t someone being cute. It was someone not bothering to check the detail and ripping someone else for not checking the detail.
How quaint.
FYI, according to Retrosheet, the Cubs played 58 home games and posted 55 different attendance figures posting 565,615 butts in seats. That yields 10,283.91 fans per game.
Whatever the actual number, I think the following is clear:
1) Telandar didn’t make an error with the intent to distort.
2) Telandar’s point that no new owner can do much to raise attendance is valid.
3) Attendance figures between 1981 and 2008 are comparable.
While much of what you say is true...
… and I did mis-add the number of games in 1981 (forgot there was a tie game!), the fact is that you cannot compare 1981 and 2008 attendance figures.
The worst-drawing team in baseball (the Marlins) drew 16,688 per game in 2008. That’s more than all but one team drew in 1981 (the Dodgers, who won the World Series that year). Part of that is because the market has been grown by MLB, not just Tribune Company, part of it is that what’s counted now is tickets sold, not turnstile count (I assume that Marlins average attendance in 2008 would have been about half what they reported had they reported turnstile count.
Finally, you did not address the fact that 1981 wasn’t the first year of Tribco ownership. 1982 was. Did I make some mistakes in the post? Yes. But that doesn’t negate my point.
Your point #2 is correct.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
Telander's point is still valid from a business sense...
…the Trib had something to work with in terms of taking the business to a more profitable level than they bought it. One could say the same thing about a number of teams even today (like the Marlins). Likewise, there were a number of teams in 1981 that were operating closer to their maximum expected profit than the Cubs. But today, that isn’t true for the Cubs. One can absolutely make the comparison between 1981’s attendance and 2008. They are not directly comparable and the difference is not entirely attributable to the Tribune Co.
But Telander’s point wasn’t giving credit to TribCo for the increased attendance. He was just saying that the Cubs don’t have this incredible unrealized profit potential like they did in 2008.
If you just bought a $900 million dollar team that had a certain profit in 2008, the natural question is how do we make this thing more profitable. Telander’s point is that the simple answer for most teams would be to increase attendance. The Ricketts will need to be more creative than that.
"I'm petrified of nipple chafing. Once it starts, it's a vicious circle." Andy Bernard
Yes, I agree. That part is undoubtedly true.
Just wish Telander had got the facts right. I got some wrong and said so.
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx
Oh my,,,
A) Telander got NO FACTS WRONG. The Trib closed on the purchase of the team in 1981! Given that his point was on what an owner can do to increase attendance, USING 1981 AS THE BASE YEAR IS PERFECTLY CORRECT AND APPROPRIATE.
B) Your statement that you made “some mistakes in the post,” ENTIRELY NEGATES YOUR POINT.
C) The fact that the market has changed since 1981 to make the climate more favorable for baseball attendance FURTHER BOOSTS TELANDER’S POINT that a new owner can do little to improve attendance.
D) Your silence on point #1 of mine shows that you understand that the title of your post is blatantly wrong.
Hell, we all make mistakes from time to time. Given that you are potentially weeks away from losing a steak dinner bet to your ex-neighbor shows that you are no exception.
This is another of those times. The Dan Rather defense (wrong but accurate) doesn’t even apply.
by Ivychat on Jan 26, 2009 7:07 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
I think Ivy writes the assembly instructions that come with a swing set
If you had to choose just one characteristic that would get you through life, choose a sense of humor.
Not the point...
…Telander is addressing the public approval rating for an ownership of a private business enterprise. Who cares? I’m sure the Ricketts would rather be adored than hated, but they aren’t trying to get elected to the Cubs ownership. Plus, this doesn’t give Cubs fans much credit. We were all dissappointed in the playoff results last year. But I don’t think many people right now would put that on Sam Zell, Jim Hendry or Crane Kenney. And really only a few will put it on Lou Piniella. I think Cubs management has done a good job in the last few years. If they continue to put forth this solid of a team, it’s just a matter of time. If the Rickett’s do the same, we’re smart enough to know the difference. After all, I don’t think many of us want the Cubs to be the Yankees anyways.
"I'm petrified of nipple chafing. Once it starts, it's a vicious circle." Andy Bernard
Actual attendance vs. Paid Attendance
Thanks for bringing this up. I never thought in the midst of January, I could be thinking of how incredibly fraudulent Pat and Ron’s ’attendance game" is. Even on a cold day like this, it pisses me off.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
