Can the Rays Ever Achieve League-Average Attendance?
This is Michael Lortz’ third piece as part of his June residency at FanGraphs. Lortz covers the Tampa Bay baseball market for the appropriately named Tampa Bay Baseball Market and has previously published work in the Community pages, as well. You can find him on Twitter, as well. Read the work of all our residents here.
In my recent interview with Rays President Brian Auld, he stated that a goal of the Rays’ front office was to reach a league-average annual attendance mark. Last year, MLB average attendance was approximately 2.4 million per club. Rays attendance was 47% below that mar. Since Stu Sternberg bought the team in 2005, the Rays have never been close to league average. The closest they’ve been is 23% below in 2009.
Here’s the Rays’ attendance compared to league average since 2006:
And the following table illustrates how far the Rays have been from league average since Sternberg bought the team.
| Year | % of MLB Average |
|---|---|
| 2006 | 54% |
| 2007 | 52% |
| 2008 | 68% |
| 2009 | 77% |
| 2010 | 76% |
| 2011 | 62% |
| 2012 | 63% |
| 2013 | 61% |
| 2014 | 59% |
| 2015 | 51% |
| 2016 | 53% |
That’s obviously not encouraging. On the other hand, does it make sence for the Rays to set even the modest goal of “average” in a universe that includes major markets such as Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York? Since 2006, the Dodgers and Yankees, for example, have never been lower than 20% above league average in annual attendance and have been as high as 64% above average. The biggest markets in Major League Baseball skew the average for less populated areas such as Tampa Bay. Those teams would have to severely struggle over an extended amount of time to be anywhere near league average.
The Rays would be better off setting goals relative to teams in similar markets. According to the new Collective Bargaining Agreement, there are three market-size brackets that dictate revenue sharing. The largest 13 markets do not receive any shared revenue. The smallest 15 receive shared revenue. Reports cite three “classes” of teams: large markets that pay, medium markets that neither pay nor receive, and small markets that receive.
While I don’t know the formula Major League Baseball has used to reach their outcomes — on a scale of 1-100, the Yankees were a 235 — we do know it is a mix of population, income, and cable households. In 2017, Tampa Bay was 18th in population, 13th in television market size (but last in TV revenue), and bottom five in regional personal income.
Fair to say, the Rays remain a recipient of revenue sharing.
Comparing the Rays to other small-market teams might be more advantageous. Consider the club in the context of nine other similar markets, as follow:
- Baltimore
- Cincinnati
- Cleveland
- Milwaukee
- Oakland (being phased out)
- Pittsburgh
- San Diego
- Seattle
- Kansas City
Heres how the Rays’ attendance compares to these teams’ combined average attendance since 2006.
In 2010, the Rays nearly drew an amount equivalent to the small-market attendance average. Although the team would like to be above average for their size, 2010 and 2009 could be considered successful from an attendance perspective, especially considering the Rays’ other obstacles, such as distance from the center of population.
Interestingly, the most average small-market team during this time was the Baltimore Orioles. Only three times between 2006 and 2016 was the Orioles attendance more than 10% above or below the small-market average.
During the Rays’ most successful years on the field, they averaged 90-plus wins. Other teams with fan representation in Tampa Bay – the Yankees and Red Sox – also averaged 90-plus wins, which lead to larger crowds for division games. While Boston and New York are working their way to the top the AL East, the Rays are sitting at roughly .500, and as I covered a few weeks ago, attendance against rivals has decreased considerably.
There is no doubt that the Rays would see an attendance spike if they moved to a new stadium in Tampa Bay, wherever that stadium may land. According to Christopher Clapp’s often-cited paper, the average “honeymoon” spike is between 32-37%. JC Bradbury recently tweeted a new average of 12%.
With the current team and current attendance trends, adding 32-37% for a new stadium would place the Rays just below average small-market attendance for the extent of the honeymoon effect.
With a better team and a new stadium closer to the center of Tampa Bay’s population, the Rays may be able to sustain or exceed the average small-market attendance. That, along with a new TV contract, would help with revenue and in turn, aid payroll, which may add to talent depth, and possibly equal more wins making the Rays more long-term competitive.
Maintaining the small-market average wouldn’t mean that the Rays would overtake Los Angeles or New York, nor would it help club reach the front office’ current dream of MLB average attendance, but it would be realistic and attainable. There is no shame in being average amongst peers.
Michael Lortz is a consultant in the Tampa Bay area. He wrote about the business of Tampa Bay baseball on his site: TampaBayBaseballMarket.com . He can be reached at @tbbaseballmkt . His first novel, Curveball at the Crossroads, is now available.
I’m old enough to remember when teams played in those old concrete multi-use stadiums like Candlestick, Jack Murphy, and 3 Rivers and attendance was horrible. Compare the Giants attendance at Candlestick to now, it’s night and day. I think a new nice stadium would make a huge difference for the Rays.
3 Rivers and Riverfront were THE EXACT SAME STADIUM, god they were awful.
I’m a Dodgers fan and I remember watching road games as a kid in the 80s and thinking all the road teams played in the exact same stadium. Candlestick, Jack Murphy, 3 Rivers, Riverfront, Veterans, Fulton-County, and the old Busch Stadium were all the same. The only thing that made the Astrodome and Olympic Stadium stand out were the roofs.
And this was before interleague play but I assume the AL parks had the same problem (Back then you stuck to one league). I know the old pre-renovation Angels stadium was a concrete monster.
Really enjoying this series of articles.
But in answer to the headline question? In a word, no.
Throughout your article series you’ve continually mentioned the benefit that a new stadium (and one in a better location) would have for Rays attendance (and in turn help them earn a profit and in turn make them a better team). But how realistic is it that the Rays will actually get a new stadium? Might investors, owner(s), potentially taxpayers look at that solution as a risky one? What if you invest in this new stadium and attendance continues to dwindle after the ‘honeymoon’ phase? It seems like an incredibly expensive endeavour just to have a 37% (at the high point) increase in attendance for the short term. If you build it, does that really mean they will come? I don’t necessarily need convincing but the people who would fund a new stadium will certainly need the numbers to backup the rallying cry before committing to it.
Secondly, you mention that the Rays are “13th in television market size (but last in TV revenue)”. Doesn’t this seem to be where a lot of the potential profits are being lost? Why are they dead last in TV revenue and what could be done regarding a new TV contract?
Lastly, you also mention that the Rays are “bottom five in regional personal income”. Doesn’t this further feed into the idea that their fans might more often tune in and watch their team on TV rather than pay to attend a game or attend several games over the course of a season? Is this bottom five statistic related to the high percentage of retirees in the area or what is the factor behind this? How can the Rays maintain league average attendance if their regional population is in the bottom five of incomes and how do teams in a similar situation manage the issue?
I hope some of this can be explored and explained in a future article.
47% below that mark*.
On the other hand, does it make sense*
which led* to larger crowds for division games
I’ll just speak to the TV issue. The Rays continually rate among the highest in ratings as a share of the market. So there is a fan base there. I’ll link to one of Michael’s (the author) articles, just from a quick google search:
http://tampabaybaseballmarket.com/adding-rays-tv-ratings-to-attendance/
The problem is that they have been locked into a poorly paying long-term contract with Fox Sports. While not public, it reportedly expires, if not after this year, in the next few. That should help with TV revenue.
Edit: Please do an article on the Rays TV contract and market. Also, please relate it to the potential increase in attendance from a new stadium. Is it possible to create some sort of statistical model?!?
Just want to expand on my edit. I’m not sure I was clear enough. The intention of my request was to relate the share of the TV market (i.e. the ratings) to an increase in attendance from a new stadium. In other words, the hypothesis is whether higher TV ratings result in a higher bump in additional attendance from a new stadium.
I’d love to do it myself. I’m just not sure where to efficiently and effectively gather the data. I don’t have time to figure it out.
The Dodgers had this problem about 10-15 years ago. When Rupert Murdoch owned the team it signed an awful local TV deal with Fox. When local TV revenue became one of the largest drivers of team income, thr Dodgers still had tight payrolls because their contract was super long. The contract expired just in time for the new rich Guggenheim group to negotiate a blockbuster which is when the Dodgers payroll became Yankees East.
Thank you for these articles, Michael. One question I have before you wrap these up; any sign the Rays are beginning to explore the possibility of just pulling up stakes and moving?
The Lightning draw 19,000 plus every game with 140 straight sellouts. Why?
They have a great arena downtown near the main population centers where people dont have to sit in traffic for an hour to go to a game.
The Rays would draw fine in a similar situation. Their great local tv ratings tell you they have good fan base support.
The Lightning also don’t have 7 professional hockey teams within 2 hours of the stadium.
People always say “stadium”, “location”, “Florida fans”. They never say “Tampa Yankees, Dunedin Blue Jays, Lakeland Flying Tigers, Clearwater Threshers, Bradenton Marauders,”.
My 6 year old doesn’t know the difference between a Tampa Bay Ray and a Tampa Yankee. My wallet does though.
Put a AA team in Bellevue and Kirkland, A+ teams in Newcastle, Shoreline, and Silverdale, invent a “Northeast Coast Summer League”, open 15 spring training complexes through Washington, and I’ll bet you the Mariners attendance drops off substantially.
Great discussion. I’m not sure that it’s as much about “large-market” versus “small-market”, but more like “downtown markets” versus “suburban markets”. E.g. I don’t really think that one can compare to Pittsburgh, because PNC Park is across the bridge from downtown and in a trendy place to visit and to commute.
Suburban stadiums can be successful. Look at Kauffman Stadium (even before the Royals championship), Angels Stadium, or what Atlanta is trying to do. But regardless of the size of the market, the stadium needs to be in a location that is easy to get to. E.g. you could place a 3rd Los Angeles baseball team in, say, Riverside, but you would get less attendance than the other teams not because of competition, but because it’s just hard to commute there.
When the Rays move to New Jersey their attendance will be well above average.
“sence”