UPDATE #2: The Nationals drew 23,299 on Weds. night, meaning the Nationals will need to draw 34,860 to pass the Reds and miss having the worst first year attendance in the Camden Yard era. The article, and table below have been updated to reflect the new data.

UPDATE: One of our readers pointed out that Jacobs Field and the Ballpark at Arlington were omitted from our study. Both ballparks opened in 1994, a strike shortened year. The table below has been updated with figures for both added with projected attendance figures based upon average attendance at the time leading up to the strike. The overall outcome for the Nationals remains the same. -- Maury Brown

In sports, we’ve all heard this saying at the end of a season:

"They have a mathematical chance.”

And, while that chance is normally referring to teams straining to make the postseason, as you’re about to see, this team’s postseason chances probably died in early April.

With two games left at home, the Washington Nationals are on the cusp of having the worst opening-year attendance of any new ballpark in the Camden Yards era – the period of rapid ballpark construction beginning after Oriole Park at Camden Yards was opened in 1992  and the incredible success it generated for the team. And, while Camden Yards is considered the ballpark – the gold standard, if you will – of the throwback ballpark craze that has swept MLB, it really got moving with the White Sox’ New Comiskey Park, or as it is now called, U.S. Cellular Field.

As I said, there is a mathematical chance that the Nationals will not own this dubious distinction. 58,158 (update: after Weds.' game, this figure now stands at 34,860 with one home game remaining) fans is all that separates attendance at Nationals Park from the worst first-year attendance of all the stadiums which opened in the last 17 years, the Reds' Great American Ball Park that opened in 2003. That year, the Reds had paid attendance of 2,355,259. With two games left to play in Nationals Park, the Nats have drawn an anemic 2,297,101 (update: after Weds'. game, this figure now stands at 2,320,400 with one home game remaining). In their last four games, three of which were played on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday – traditionally the best days of the week for attendance – the Nationals have averaged 26,585 (update: after Weds.' game, this figure now stands at 27,245). That same average in their two remaining games against the Marlins would not be enough to keep Nationals Park from becoming the worst attended new ballpark opening since 1991.

One could easily parade a list of issues that have surrounded the club and team this year as partial reasons for the woeful attendance. Low morale created by ownership, injuries, bad trades, an inability to sign top draft picks. You name it, they're all there. On top of those issues, radio and television ratings are beyond terrible, so the apathy runs deep (see The Nationals Need to Break the Status Woe). On Tuesday, Tim Lemke and Mark Zuckerman of The Washington Times published the article that best covers the incredibly dismal season for the club (Nationals ‘miserable’ on, off field).

As I was quoted in the article:

"For a first year in a ballpark, it's not good," said Maury Brown, founder of the Business of Sports Network and publisher of bizofbaseball.com. "You have to add the caveat that they weren't very good and they were decimated by injuries. But it's just not good, and excuses only go so far."

To expand on the idea that excuses only go so far, the research detailed below tells a tale in which a team's won/loss record doesn’t have much impact on first-season attendance for  new stadiums or for expansion teams – an excuse many a die-hard Nationals fan has used to rationalize this glaring issue. As you will see, the fans making excuses don't have much to hang their hat on.

Of the 18 ballparks built from 1991 to 2008 when Nationals Park opened, there were some awful on-field records: 100 losses by the Pirates, 99 by the Devil Rays, 98 by the Marlins, and 97 by the Diamondbacks. Each of those teams had attendance figures above the 2008 Nationals. And in the case of the Diamondbacks, short of the Orioles, they had the highest first-year attendance of the 16 stadiums during this era. Worse for the Nationals, all those other teams play in smaller markets.

And if that's not bad enough, the Nationals could very easily see attendance in 2009 drop below this year’s figure as the honeymoon effect dissipates and season ticket renewals drop.

The Nationals have a chance for redemption, but it will require that owner Ted Lerner pull back from his current restrained stance and allow president Stan Kasten to do his stuff, otherwise, look for another year of the status woe.

To be taken seriously by fans in the coming off-season, the Nationals ownership will have to be equally as serious about repairing the damage done since purchasing the club.

* Pre-dates Camden Yards (Opened on April 18, 1991, just under one year before OPACY opened on April 6, 1992)

^ First full season. Opened July15, 2000.

Æ Based on projected average attendance due to strike shortened season. Actual, 2,503,198 over 63 games. Average of 39,733 per game.

§ Based on projected average attendance due to strike shortened season. Actual, 1,995,174 over 51 games. Average of 39,121 per game.

æ As of 9/24/08. One game left in season at Nationals Park

Source: Baseball Reference, ESPN, Business of Sports Network research

Comments (24)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

You are missing Cleveland
written by Alex Santantonio, September 24, 2008

Your forgot Cleveland and Texas. Cleveland's Jacob's Field opened in the strike shortened season of 1994, along with the Rangers' new Ballpark at Arlington. Cleveland had 1,995,174, and Texas had 2,503,198 total attendance that season. While these numbers are lower due to the season ending on 8/10/94, given the average attendance of 39,121 per game over 51 games for Cleveland, and 39,733 per game over 63 games for Texas, we can estimate their total regular season attendance would have been roughly 3,168,804 and 3,218,392 for Cleveland and Texas respectively.

So depending on the way you want to look, the Nats could be considered higher than the Jake, but shouldn't be.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Updating shortly
written by Maury Brown, September 24, 2008

Thanks on this, Alex. I will be updating shortly. Looking at the boxscores, Texas played 63 games at home in 1994. Will be adding in the Ballpark at Arlington and the Jake later this afternoon after calculations are done.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

There's one big factor you're not considering
written by An Briosca Mor, September 24, 2008

Interesting analysis, but there's one huge aspect to this that you've overlooked entirely. All of these markets you've cited here were new baseball park virgins during their first seasons with a new park, and several of them were also new team virgins. Washington in 2008 is neither. It has been the recipient of two new baseball teams since 1960, with a third adopted baseball team (the Orioles) for basically an entire generation in between those two teams. The Washington area has also already been through the opening of a new stadium for its adopted home team (the Orioles) in 1993. That stadium opening was treated at the time as a Washington event by the local newspaper, the Post, with front page saturation coverage in every section of the newspaper, not just Sports. Estimates are that as many as a quarter of the fans who filled Camden Yards those first few years came from Washington.

Everyone knows that the second kid is never met with as much anticipation, hype and favor as the first kid was. The Washington Nationals are the area's fourth baseball kid, and Nationals Park is the area's second new baseball stadium kid in the Camden Yards era. With a baseball team that will lose 100 games playing in it, it is no surprise that Nationals Park did not draw enough fans to pa*s Cincinnati on this list. The surprise is that despite this being the second time around the block for DC and a new stadium, and despite the team being as bad as it is, Nationals Park drew remarkably well. That's the story you ought to be writing.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Good points, but...
written by Maury Brown, September 24, 2008

Thanks very much for the comment.

What you bring up is worth mentioning. However, I can't say it's "huge" as the topic then veers into whether the market is viable based on the list of issues you mention, which I don't prescribe to. D.C. is, and should be, a robust market for MLB.

One of the reasons I don't wholly agree with the "huge" factor... The last Senators team skipped off to Texas over 30 years ago. Many fans of MLB can hardly remember the Senators or weren't born yet.

As for the Orioles... That was Peter Angelos' argument, which then comes back to my initial comment that if the dilution of the market impacts attendance that adversely, it gets into whether the market viable, which, again, I don't agree with.

What I also didn't get into, but also should have brought up, was the size of the markets. Cincinnati (and almost all the other markets in the study, Chicago the exception) is clearly a much smaller market than D.C., so their battle of bringing in fans should be greater for the other markets.

The other issue is that the throwback ballpark design is not nearly as exciting as it was when Camden and others close to its unveiling were.

All of this conversation brings up the complexity of attendance based on a host of issues. Still, based upon the exceptionally low television and radio ratings, along with attendance, one can see that the Lerners can't sit idly by. I believe that, more than anything has created fan apathy in D.C.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Richard1, September 24, 2008

The economy is weak and fuel prices are excessive also.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Maury Brown, September 24, 2008

This does impact matters. However, fans have been called to ride the Metro, and from November 2001-November 2002 we were officially in a recession, which should have grazed the Brewers.

Also, gas prices and the economy shouldn't adversely impact television and radio ratings. If anything, they should go up in an economic downturn.

All of these are great points. All impact the Nationals and should not be wholly discounted. I still contend that how the club has been managed at the ownership level is creating the bulk of the problems for the Nationals.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by An Briosca Mor, September 24, 2008

All of these are great points. All impact the Nationals and should not be wholly discounted. I still contend that how the club has been managed at the ownership level is creating the bulk of the problems for the Nationals.

So is it your contention, then, that the haphazard management of the Nationals during the 2+ years of MLB ownership was better for the team and the region than the management being delivered by the Lerners today? In many ways, the hole the Lerners are trying to get themselves out of today was dug by MLB when it owned the team. to wit:

(1) The stadium agreement, which of course has spawned the withholding of rent by the Lerners in order to get the many problems still left in the stadium fixed before the city totally removes itself from there and becomes basically an absentee landlord for the next 30 years - as it was at RFK. (The local and national press has yet to report exactly what items are included on the lengthy punch list that the Lerners want fixed in exchange for the rent payment - which of course they will make in full, plus interest, when the dispute is settled by arbitration. But internet scuttlebutt talks of things such as sewage backups in commodes after every rainfall, cascades of water in the clubhouse, etc, which are by no means minor. The Lerners, shunning the limelight as is their way, are either being good corporate citizens or engaging in a bad PR move by not walking into the Washington Post and dropping a bound volume of their punch list onto Tom Boswell's or Chico Harlan's desk, because if they did I'm sure there would be investigative journalism to rival Watergate on the DC Council's role in this matter.)

(2) The MASN agreement, which binds the Nationals' TV broadcasts to the Orioles for the next 30 years, with the Orioles in the lead role. There is absolutely nothing the Nationals can do to improve their TV numbers except for fielding a better team and perhaps hiring different announcers - which will come in due time. And when that time comes, ratings will improve.

Really, MLB dug a big hole in the Baltimore Orioles' market area and dropped the Nationals into it. The team is basically trying to claw its way out of that hole and gain some traction for itself in the Washington area, an area in which the Orioles have been fairly well entrenched for a generation. (In contrast to what happened when the Colts left Baltimore and that city never embraced the Redskins or indeed had anything but hate for them as it waited for the Ravens to eventually arrive, the DC area and its newspaper were totally in bed with the Orioles only five years or so after the Senators left. The Orioles were DC's team for 20 years, and Camden Yards was DC's stadium. that old habit is proving very hard to break.

So the Lerners are in reality trying to get out of a hole. The first rule of holes, of course, is that if ever you find yourself in one, stop digging. The hole the Nationals are in was dug by MLB. Is it your contention that the Lerners, despite their attempts to introduce sound business acumen to the team, are still digging?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Update to table... Comments
written by Maury Brown, September 24, 2008

First of all, the table above has been updated with Jacobs Field and the Ballpark at Arlington added. As noted, these ballparks opened in 1994 -- strike shortened year. The figures within the table represent the projected attendance based upon average attendance leading up to the end of the season.

Now, with that out of the way...

The MASN deal benefits the Lerners. Revenues are locked in, no matter how the team performs, and their percentage of ownership increases over time. Much like the business tax to help pay off the construction bonds, the Lerners are not forced to improve the on-the-field product in order to meet these obligations.

I find it academic, however. Before the Lerners signed the purchase agreement they were given time to conduct their due diligence. Anything mentioned about MLB creating this problem should be addressed with, "We knew what we were getting into."

That doesn't mean you throw money down the drain by releasing players, or by acting entirely as if you are a market the size of Cleveland, or Kansas City. Being fiscally responsible has to be weighed against running a sports franchise. It's not the same as managing a mall.

Now, the Lerners can continue to slice payroll to the nub and follow Jeffery Loria's lead -- cutting margins to increase profits. But, the notion -- or rather, the probability that a market the size of Washington, D.C. could receive revenue sharing is almost beyond belief.

Let's see what Forbes releases as operating income for the Nationals next year. If the Lerners are indeed trying to dig themselves out of a hole, profits should be slim to none.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Pirates?
written by DC, September 24, 2008

Why is the Pirates' PNC Park not in the table?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by An Briosca Mor, September 24, 2008

Re your comments about MASN, payroll, operating profit and such: Now you're talking money, when your initial article was all about lousy attendance and TV numbers. The Lerners do make money off of the MASN deal, but it also hamstrings them if they want to do anything to increase viewership, which is what I'm saying. Similarly on attendance. They can throw all the payroll in the world out there, but if the team doesn't win it's not going to increase attendance much if at all if they don't win. There was payroll aplenty up in Baltimore in the years after Cal set the record and before the Nats arrived, but it didn't put any more fannies into OPACY. There was payroll in the person of Soriano here in 2006, and as a result attendance dropped by around 400,000. Same park, same everything else - except fewer wins. OTOH, a team of no-names came to DC in 2005 and started winning, which added to the existing new-team buzz and jacked attendance up to a level that may never be seen again. Until a winning team starts playing in Nationals Park, that is.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

TV and Radio
written by Maury Brown, September 24, 2008

On the ratings... You can use what you are mentioning only so far. Does it impact matters? Yes, but only to a certain extent.

Example...

According to Arbitron, from May through July of this year, the Nationals drew a total – not monthly – audience of 26,500. Those are figures that some minor league clubs get.

The TV numbers are equally as woeful. You can't have numbers as low as they have been and say that its the structure of the MASN deal.

On PNC missing from the table...


It was in my spreadsheet, but missed getting in via table create here on the site. It is now added in.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Trouble in D.C.
written by Maury Brown, September 24, 2008

Gary Fraley of The Sporting News writes:


Trouble in D.C.

The shotgun marriage of Washington Nationals president Stan Kasten and general manager Jim Bowden should end soon.

According to several major league officials, Kasten wanted to fire a member of the Nationals' scouting staff for an embarra*sing display in the press box before a game at Colorado. The scout loudly and profanely criticized the Rockies' player-development operation. Bowden convinced ownership to keep the scout in question.

That showed Kasten that he lacked the authority to do the job as he did with Atlanta. As Braves president, Kasten was an unheralded hero for the manner in which he brought order to the organization and allowed the baseball operation to do its job without outside interference.

The Nationals desperately needed the same type of leadership. If Kasten leaves, as expected, it will be a huge setback for an organization mired in chaos. That seems to be Bowden's preferred manner of operation

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Not to be a pain
written by Alex Santantonio, September 24, 2008

Not to be a pain, but I think your projected totals for Cleveland and Texas are off, very low, but doesn't impact the intent of the article.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Method
written by Maury Brown, September 25, 2008

Using Texas

(2,503,198/63)= 39,733
(average based upon total number of games player before strike)

39,733*72= 2,816,716
(total based upon 72 home games that would have made up a complete season in 1994)

Flaw in the method?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by An Briosca Mor, September 25, 2008

"The TV numbers are equally as woeful. You can't have numbers as low as they have been and say that its the structure of the MASN deal. "

It's not so much the structure of the MASN deal as it is MASN itself. Orioles ratings are bad as well, although better than the Nats. But the Orioles are a team with a 20+ year history of being on TV in DC. Why would their ratings in DC all of a sudden tank when they go from being on Comcast pre-2007 to being on MASN now? The Orioles fans who live in DC haven't moved away, and obviously they aren't going up to OPACY since attendance is down there too.

MASN is a terrible excuse for a RSN that's supposed to be covering two MLB teams. In 2008, they had only 40 Nats and 40 O's games in HD, and no HD channel at all. They had to beg, borrow and steal space on their cable providers' other HD channels to show what HD games they offered. Not all cable providers even offered MASN HD. Verizon FiOS didn't.

From one night to the next, you never know whether your Nats game is on MASN, MASN2 or over-the-air My20. MASN2 isn't a ful-time channel either, it's just cobbled-together begged, borrowed and stolen cable space any time MASN needs to air an O's game and a Nats game at the same time.

Couple Nats games that admittedly not all that many people want to watch in the first place with a "network" that's pretty hard to find even for those who DO want to watch, and you have a multiplier effect. Ergo, not just bad ratings, but historically bad ratings.

And because the Nats are only minority owners of MASN, there's nothing they can do to change the situation (like adding more HD, creating a full-time second network, advertising MASN on other stations, or anything that might increase its visibility in the area and make games easier to find) unless Peter Angelos and the O's want to do it. MASN = Mister Angelos's Sports Network. What incentive does he have to promote the Nats?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Missing the obvious
written by Open Stance, September 25, 2008

I paid $75 for a ticket in Section 131. Pretty steep, especially when considering I could get a comparable seat in Coors Field for $47. The Nats aren’t the Yankees or Red Sox. Nationals tickets are severely overpriced.

Secondly, it’s not a very interesting ballpark.

Both are reasons to go once, but not come back. The poor play just compounds the issue.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

With one game left...
written by Maury Brown, September 25, 2008

The Nationals drew 23,299 tonight, meaning they will need to draw 34,860 for their final game to move one game ahead of the Reds.

Updating the table above, momentarily.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by An Briosca Mor, September 25, 2008

Tonight's game is likely to be rained out, and if it is it surely won't be rescheduled since both teams are out of the playoff hunt. Which will leave the Nationals with only 80 home dates this year. You'll need to stick an asterisk on this "record". Be prepared.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by sox fan , September 25, 2008

I have no doubt that the Nats would shatter the record for the actual number of people showing up at games in the first year of a new stadium. Hell, they might even challenge the all-sport, new facility record held (unofficially, of course) by the Charlotte Bobcats.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Maury Brown, September 25, 2008

Tonight's game is likely to be rained out, and if it is it surely won't be rescheduled since both teams are out of the playoff hunt. Which will leave the Nationals with only 80 home dates this year. You'll need to stick an asterisk on this "record". Be prepared.

"Being prepared" means simply doing as you said: place a footnote and use average attendance to determine what the projected attendance for the year would be.

As rainouts go, I imagine that it will have to be coming down good tonight for a rainout as opposed to a rain delay with showers. Revenues, baby... revenues.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by An Briosca Mor, September 25, 2008

" 'Being prepared' means simply doing as you said: place a footnote and use average attendance to determine what the projected attendance for the year would be."

Oh, I see. Like when they used Babe Ruth's average number of home runs per game in 1927 extrapolated out over 162 games to determine whether Roger Maris broke his record or not.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Flaw in method?
written by Alex Santantonio, September 25, 2008

Maury, out of curiosity, why are you using 72 home games as a complete season and not 81 for the 1994 season? My numbers were based on an 81 game home season. I'm very confused :-)

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Washington Post - Plagerizing?
written by Maury Brown, September 25, 2008

Nice to see the Washington Post possibly plagiarizing this article. Yes, I'm sure they'd say they did this research on their own, but...

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Oh, strike season of 1995
written by Alex Santantonio, September 25, 2008

Oh, I see, I think your off by a year. The 1995 strike shortened season (where the beginning was cut off) was a 144 game season. The 1994 season was an arbitrarily ended season on 8/11/94, so the teams had varying games completed.

So based on this, and using a true complete season of 81 home games, rather than 72, the Rockies would have had 3,813,791, putting them atop the board, ahead of the Orioles. I still contend that Cleveland would have had 3,168,804 and Texas 3,218,392, but that is based on my 81 game complete season for 1994.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment