Marlins Take BP In New Stadium

Yes, it's not done yet. But a couple players took some swings anyway. Photos inside, via Rob Neyer at SBNation.com.

over 1 year ago Al Yellon 28 comments 0 recs |

Comments

Cool

I told my wife about the new park and she loves it. She goes to the game w/ me and I go to the beach w/ her. The sacrifices I make! ;~)
I dont understand the red seat thing though. I understand its the first seat, but so what. And it is in a random place. Plus, dont seats go in in blocks? Whatever.

"Baseball is ninety percent mental. The other half is physical." -Yogi Berra

by imacubman on Feb 16, 2011 4:32 PM CST reply actions

The new stadium looks awesome.

"Pounding sand since 1982...."

by cubswynn on Feb 16, 2011 5:23 PM CST reply actions

No one is going to go there anyway

"A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality." John Lennon
"My favorite food is Macaroni and Cheese, from the blue box." Geovany Soto

by Cubbiegoon on Feb 16, 2011 6:32 PM CST reply actions

Yes, actually, they will.

Because for the first time, they can go to Marlins games where the stadium isn’t in the middle of nowhere, and they are assured of not sitting through a rain delay.

Part of this deal is that the team is to be renamed “Miami Marlins”. Which sounds better anyway.

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 16, 2011 8:49 PM CST up reply actions

also the seats will be better angled (i would hope) for a baseball game

Chronologically inept since 2060
Q: Why did Chuck Norris cross the road?
A: Ditka
Ditka's mustache can block a Chuck Norris round house

by Cubbie-Tim on Feb 16, 2011 9:07 PM CST up reply actions

Since it's a baseball only stadium I'd think that would be a no-brainer.

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 16, 2011 9:29 PM CST up reply actions

are you sure

do we need to get verification, maybe ask your verifying individual to post it here

/SARCASM

Chronologically inept since 2060
Q: Why did Chuck Norris cross the road?
A: Ditka
Ditka's mustache can block a Chuck Norris round house

by Cubbie-Tim on Feb 16, 2011 9:39 PM CST up reply actions

Miami Marlins?

Really?

"Pounding sand since 1982...."

by cubswynn on Feb 16, 2011 9:53 PM CST up reply actions

one step closer to "the future"

Chronologically inept since 2060
Q: Why did Chuck Norris cross the road?
A: Ditka
Ditka's mustache can block a Chuck Norris round house

by Cubbie-Tim on Feb 16, 2011 10:09 PM CST up reply actions

and the past

From Wikipedia…

The Miami Marlins was the name of a Class AAA American minor league baseball franchise based in Miami, Florida, that played in the International League from 1956 through 1960.

Satchel Paige played with them during this time.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Feb 17, 2011 7:27 AM CST up reply actions

Also...

… there was a Miami Marlins team in the short lived Inter American League which played in 1979.

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 17, 2011 7:31 AM CST up reply actions

2015, baby!

by Flatley on Feb 17, 2011 9:36 AM CST up reply actions

It's our year!!

Now, about those flying cars filling up at the Texaco station…

"We're young and dumb and ready to go throw strikes." James Russell

by PacificCub on Feb 17, 2011 11:20 AM CST up reply actions

Yes.

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 17, 2011 7:18 AM CST up reply actions

good for the construction workers

to get a chance to take a breather and see a few players come in. i like that the pitcher is wearing a hard hat as well

Chronologically inept since 2060
Q: Why did Chuck Norris cross the road?
A: Ditka
Ditka's mustache can block a Chuck Norris round house

by Cubbie-Tim on Feb 16, 2011 7:25 PM CST reply actions

Breather??

That wasn’t their break time. Not by the union rules. ;)

"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.

by RiskyBusiness on Feb 17, 2011 9:32 AM CST up reply actions

As noted in the comments...

There were about as many people there to see BP as there are to see an actual Marlins’ game.

It should be a big improvement, but it still won’t fix the south FLA attitude/attendance issue.

"Stuff like this is why they should shut off the internet."

by Orval Overall on Dec 17, 2010 1:19 PM CST

by fsuapollo on Feb 16, 2011 10:45 PM CST reply actions

They'll draw well the first year.

Teams always do in a new stadium. After that, they’ll have to win to keep drawing. In any case, they should draw better than they do in the current stadium.

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 17, 2011 7:19 AM CST up reply actions

Closer to downtown and in Little Havana will help

I went to a Cuba @ Marlins game on my honeymoon. We had great seats (and free) right behind the Cubs dugout. But it is a trip to get to the current stadium.

And AC in Miami in the summer will be a big boost.

I would expect a game atmosphere with more of a Caribbean feel to them. Like the MLB games played in Puerto Rico.

"Easy on the words, brother,'' Quade said.

by RiskyBusiness on Feb 17, 2011 9:45 AM CST up reply actions

That's not true actually.

They’ll draw well the first year.

Teams always do in a new stadium. After that, they’ll have to win to keep drawing.

For modern baseball stadiums, the effect lasts 6-10 years, regardless of the quality of the team.

Contrary to expectations, there is no systematic interaction between new venues and team performance on attendance or stadium revenues. This noncomplementarity implies that a profit-maximizing team owner would not use a new stadium’s revenue stream to increase team quality of play.

If the Marlins have proven anything over the years, it’s that they’re profit-maximizing to a dishonest degree.

by Wreckard on Feb 17, 2011 10:20 AM CST up reply actions

6-10 years?

Tell that to the Pirates or Tigers.

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 17, 2011 10:40 AM CST up reply actions

2 data points doesn't really disprove a study that uses 52 years of data

And even though their attendance is dismal now, it’s likely that their attendance would be even worse if they didn’t have a stadium.

The increase in attendance is 32-37%, so if your attendance is bad to begin with a new stadium in and of itself isn’t going to drastically change that, bu t it certainly isn’t going to hurt.

by Wreckard on Feb 17, 2011 10:54 AM CST up reply actions

Cite, please, for this study.

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 17, 2011 11:15 AM CST up reply actions

http://jse.sagepub.com/content/6/3/237.abstract

by Wreckard on Feb 17, 2011 2:14 PM CST up reply actions

Now...

… I can’t find the specific numbers in there, but could they be skewed by newer stadiums in the 1970s and 1980s that did very well for a number of years?

Milwaukee Brewers attendance at Miller Park dropped precipitously after its opening in 2001, until the Brewers got better. Same with PNC.

While the whole study may show that numbers in general may have gone up and stayed up, it appears that in recent years the reverse is true.

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 17, 2011 2:38 PM CST up reply actions

So leaving the study out of this, we'll look at your two examples.

In the 9 years before they got their new stadium the Pirates averaged 19,456 fans per game. In the 9 years following (and excluding the first year of the new stadium) they’ve averaged 21,655. That’s an 11% increase on average per game. If you narrow the window to the 6 years after the stadium was build, they had a 14% increase per game.

The Tigers are more complicated because they’re better now as a team, but comparing the 2 decades before and after (and again excluding the first year of the stadium) they’ve enjoyed a 45% increase since they built their new stadium. If you exclude their successful years, they got a 14% boost in yearly attendance in the years following the construction of the stadium (2001-2005).

So forget about the study (which regressed for team record), the basic numbers don’t back up your claim that the Tigers and Pirates only benefited for one year from the new stadiums.

by Wreckard on Feb 17, 2011 2:50 PM CST up reply actions

The point is...

… the teams got a one-year bounce, then attendance declined. Sure, the averages went up — in large part because attendance had gotten so poor before the new stadiums opened.

Check out Chicago sports coverage at SB Nation Chicago

by Al Yellon on Feb 17, 2011 3:33 PM CST up reply actions