The Baltimore Orioles Thread (merged)

[Mattpat11]

huh, i wonder then why so many new yorkers come down every single summer in droves to see camden yards?

because they enjoy themselves and have a great time.
.

There are areas of Baltimore that are absolutely beautiful now.

There is also parts of it that I wouldn't enter if I had a machine gun.

And I live in DC most of the year.

[kan_t]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...gelos-must-go/

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...gelos-must-go/

That article can't be right. bobby jr insists that Angelos is a good owner, and bobby jr is clearly a pretty sharp guy.

[LongtimeNYYFan]

That article can't be right. bobby jr insists that Angelos is a good owner, and bobby jr is clearly a pretty sharp guy.

Sharp alright. Sharp as a marble.

[NYDCYankee]

huh, i wonder then why so many new yorkers come down every single summer in droves to see camden yards?

because they enjoy themselves and have a great time.

and it's not like NYC wasn't an absolute ................hole a couple decades ago.

urban renewal is a fact of city life. quit being so smug.

My fiance goes to school at Loyola in Baltimore and I am there several times a week and on the weekends, and there are a lot of really nice areas of Baltimore and places to go.

I will say the problem with Baltimore is that unlike most cities, like say DC which has one big nice area and one big bad and dangerous area, Baltimore is 5 really bad blocks, 5 really nice blocks, 5 really bad blocks, 5 really nice blocks. It is splotchy. Anyway we are getting married this August and I will be moving there at least for a 8 months so she can finish up school, and I am actually really looking forward to living there.

It's better than the suburbs...gosh anything is.

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

Sharp alright. Sharp as a marble.

Hey, a marble could put your eye out.

[ojo]

My fiance goes to school at Loyola in Baltimore and I am there several times a week and on the weekends, and there are a lot of really nice areas of Baltimore and places to go.

I will say the problem with Baltimore is that unlike most cities, like say DC which has one big nice area and one big bad and dangerous area, Baltimore is 5 really bad blocks, 5 really nice blocks, 5 really bad blocks, 5 really nice blocks. It is splotchy. Anyway we are getting married this August and I will be moving there at least for a 8 months so she can finish up school, and I am actually really looking forward to living there.

It's better than the suburbs...gosh anything is.

ah one of my buddies is finishing up his grad school work at loyola. congrats!

[NewOrioleWork]

I will say the problem with Baltimore is that unlike most cities, like say DC which has one big nice area and one big bad and dangerous area, Baltimore is 5 really bad blocks, 5 really nice blocks, 5 really bad blocks, 5 really nice blocks. It is splotchy.

Good observation.

With DC, the good parts are often connected to politics: the area around the Smithsonian and Georgetown, for example. In a way, that's an industry--a positive aspect the city is famous for that produces economical, social and/or cultural wealth. Excluding the Inner Harbor, Baltimore doesn't have any real industry. That's why there aren't many big stretches of "good" neighborhoods: there is nothing for them to revolve around.

--Alexander

[Jersey Yankee]

Sharp alright. Sharp as a marble.

Hey, anyone who wishes that Jason Giambi bat leadoff, and that some Olympic runner be used to leadoff, and that managers start a LHP in a game, then use a RHP after the 1st inning, would obviously be sheer genius.

[Archer1979]

Hey, anyone who wishes that Jason Giambi bat leadoff, and that some Olympic runner be used to leadoff, and that managers start a LHP in a game, then use a RHP after the 1st inning, would obviously be sheer genius.

OMG!!! He is teh SMART!!!111000

[NYDCYankee]

ah one of my buddies is finishing up his grad school work at loyola. congrats!

Thanks man.

[Jersey Yankee]

OMG!!! He is teh SMART!!!111000

You haven't even been here a year, and you've already got almost 8,000 posts. That's *DISGUSTING*, especially for a Beantowner.

That said, before you'd joined 11 months ago, there were tons of crazy posts. I also remember when you were here, after Baltimore had a great 1st half last season, which included beating the Yanks, bobby jr had posted that they were no longer the Yanks' punching bags.

Then he'd derided free agency, saying that the Yanks had bought all of their teams, but the Frank & Brooks Robinson era were amongst the best he'd known in his entire year (posted ever so ... modestly, I'll add).

Anyway, this guy's a trip and a half. I wouldn't say "troll", but if you're a fish, avoid any veiled bait; you'll live longer. Long story with this guy.

BTW, the Olympic runner thing may have been about a base stealer/utility guy, but the proposal of his for a leadoff player was definitely Jason Giambi.

On another note, about 2004 or so, before the Nats were born, he'd posted that the NYC metro area should accept a 3rd team, and he was quite emphatic on this. A few of us, including yours truly, said that he was likely fearing a new team going into the Baltimore/DC/MD/VA area. Sure enough, there's a new team in that area.

[Archer1979]

You haven't even been here a year, and you've already got almost 8,000 posts. That's *DISGUSTING*, especially for a Beantowner.

That said, before you'd joined 11 months ago, there were tons of crazy posts. I also remember when you were here, after Baltimore had a great 1st half last season, which included beating the Yanks, bobby jr had posted that they were no longer the Yanks' punching bags.

Then he'd derided free agency, saying that the Yanks had bought all of their teams, but the Frank & Brooks Robinson era were amongst the best he'd known in his entire year (posted ever so ... modestly, I'll add).

Anyway, this guy's a trip and a half. I wouldn't say "troll", but if you're a fish, avoid any veiled bait; you'll live longer. Long story with this guy.

BTW, the Olympic runner thing may have been about a base stealer/utility guy, but the proposal of his for a leadoff player was definitely Jason Giambi.

On another note, about 2004 or so, before the Nats were born, he'd posted that the NYC metro area should accept a 3rd team, and he was quite emphatic on this. A few of us, including yours truly, said that he was likely fearing a new team going into the Baltimore/DC/MD/VA area. Sure enough, there's a new team in that area.

You mean Bobby was serious!!!

[Slidemaster]

Ok, a few things.

First of all, Angelos is a joke. I have trouble even looking at a picture of the man.

Second, I feel I must defend my team's city a little bit. Baltimore, like every other place in the world, has it's nice places and it's crappy, run down places. As for being the syphilis capital of the world (and also in the top ten in other STDs, if I'm not mistaken), a big, big reason for why that is is because of JHU, where they do a ton of medical research. The large number of people with STDs in Baltimore is due in large part to the fact that many who are infected TRAVEL THERE for treatment, and sometimes stay for relatively lengthy periods of time, especially for diseases that a shot of penicillin won't cure (like AIDS, for example). My girlfriend's mother was a 25 year nurse. She's kind of up on such things.

Third, Roberts' elbow from all reports that I've heard is doing very well. I didn't actually see the injury on TV (and I have no desire to) but all reports from the doctors, physical therapists, and from Roberts himself appear to have him on target for about the middle of spring training. Maybe he'll make opening day, maybe he'll take a few weeks to start playing, but he WILL be back close to the start of the season, if the reports are accurate.

Fourth, Angelos is still a joke.

[ShaneTravis]

Ok, a few things.

Second, I feel I must defend my team's city a little bit. Baltimore, like every other place in the world, has it's nice places and it's crappy, run down places. As for being the syphilis capital of the world (and also in the top ten in other STDs, if I'm not mistaken), a big, big reason for why that is is because of JHU, where they do a ton of medical research. The large number of people with STDs in Baltimore is due in large part to the fact that many who are infected TRAVEL THERE for treatment, and sometimes stay for relatively lengthy periods of time, especially for diseases that a shot of penicillin won't cure (like AIDS, for example). My girlfriend's mother was a 25 year nurse. She's kind of up on such things.

That makes sense. I never heard a proper explanation as to why Balt. is always mentioned with STD's, I thought the city just liked to party.
It's pretty cool you guys have The Bloomberg School of Health over there.
I always equated JHU with Cancer not infectious diseases, thanks for clearing it up.
Now, if they could only cure Angelos's ineptitude. lol

[Slidemaster]

That makes sense. I never heard a proper explanation as to why Balt. is always mentioned with STD's, I thought the city just liked to party.
It's pretty cool you guys have The Bloomberg School of Health over there.
I always equated JHU with Cancer not infectious diseases, thanks for clearing it up.
Now, if they could only cure Angelos's ineptitude. lol

JHU is best known for it's cancer related research, but it's involved in all sorts of medical endeavors. Angelos' ineptitude however, is one ailment which no one seems capable of aleviating.

[Jersey Yankee]

You mean Bobby was serious!!!

Dude, I may joke around most of the time here lately, but that's what he's been known for. If you don't believe me, please go to ATM, type in "bobby jr" and see for yourself. Go back to the last page (I saw 4 pages).

Here's an example, dated 11/2002:

http://forums.nyyfans.com/showthread.php?t=36501

Here is my idea on how the Orioles could use a unique strategy to lower the opposing teams’ such as the Yankees batting average and power.

I have put this on Sunspot, and I wonder what you Yankee fans think of this idea.

My idea would also limit the opposing manager’s options in stacking their lineups to platoon their right and handed hitters against the Orioles.
To summarize, the Orioles could ruin the opposing teams’ platoon by letting their starting pitcher face a single batter, then removing him for a pitcher who throws from the opposite side.

For example, when the Orioles are playing a team that which platoons a lot, the Orioles could start a left-handed pitcher. The opposing team would then stack their lineup with right-handed batters.

These batters would on average hit at least twenty points higher on the average against southpaw pitchers. For example, on average a right-handed batter with a .244 average would hit about .258 against lefties, and about .236 against right handed pitchers. Also they would hit with more power against left-handed pitchers.

After the Orioles southpaw pitcher faces one batter, Hargrove would come out and remove him from the game, bringing in a right handed pitcher. The other team would then be stuck with a lineup of right handed batters, who would essentially be hitting .236 instead of .258, with less power too. They would have to either pinch hit immediately, or stick with their lineup that would now be a platoon lineup from the wrong side of the plate! If they pinch hit, this would limit their options for the rest of the game, especially the late innings. Either way, the Orioles come out ahead.

After this happened a few times, other managers would become reluctant to stack their lineups with platoon players against the Orioles. The fear of Hargrove making a pitching change after one batter would cause the opposing managers to protect themselves by limiting the number of platoon hitters they start. Thus, the plan could help the Orioles even when it isn’t used.

The pitch-to-one-batter plan should be used sparingly, say about 10 times a year, to avoid disrupting the starting rotation. It would only be used against teams that platoon heavily and only for certain games, to be discerned by Hargrove. But it indeed could be an effective strategy, and could result in more Orioles wins.

[Jersey Yankee]

Here's another fine example of bobby's writings, dated 12/2002:

Hiring Olympic Sprinter as Pinch Runner-It Could Work!

In 1974, the Oakland A's hired Herb Washington, a world class sprinter for one purpose and one purpose only- to steal bases. He never had an at bat, but man could that guy run!

He pinch ran in late inning crucial situations, and stole 29 bases, and scored 29 runs. Many of these were game winning or tying runs. The Oakland A's went on to win the World Series in 1974, with the help of Herb Washington.

I remember watching games and hearing the announcers yelling with excitement as Herb took off. Even when he didn't get a good jump, he could seemingly outrun the ball and steal the base. He brought excitement to the game and fans to the ballpark.

It puzzles me why this experiment has not been tried again. Considering the improved speed of world class sprinters today compared with 1974, a top sprinter could steal even more bases today.

The 25th and last man on a major league roster seldom contributes much, and having a track star to steal bases in crucial situations could help a team win.

Just as it did in 1974, when Herb Washington helped the Oakland A's win the World Series.

Another, dated 1/2003: Lineup With Giambi as Leadoff Man: It Could Work!

When I was in high school in the early 1970's I remember reading an article by a baseball statistician . He said that his analysis showed that the common method of setting a baseball lineup was not the best way to maximize runs over a season.

According to his stats, instead of batting your "best" hitter (Such as the Yankees' Giambi) 3rd or 4th, you should bat him leadoff! This would maximize his AB's per game and per season, and result in more runs scored.

I was curious to see if this theory has ever been tested with the computer technology available today, so the other day I did a search on "best batting order" and came up with below following link.

According to this analysis, by batting the best batter such as Giambi first, the 2nd leading batter 2nd, etc., the Yankees could win three extra games per year.

I think the extra wins per year would be even greater than three in the American League with the designated hitter rule, the number nine batter would be getting on base more often to be driven in than the pitcher would in the National League.

Anyway, here is an excerpt, and the link. Worth consideration, in my opinion!

“On the face of the matter, it would appear that a team might be best served by batting their leading hitter first, the second leading hitter second, etc, etc, just to maximize the number of at-bats the better hitters get over the course of a season. This might really seem weird on the surface, but it does make some sense.

Before anyone gets all worked up about it, after running thousands of simulations with both the "best" batting orders (such as the one just proposed, in descending order of OPS), the "typical" batting order, and the "worst" possible batting order, the differences in result are not earth-shattering. Usually the simulations come out within 30 runs of each other, no matter what the batting order. In a typical season on a typical team, that might mean three wins.”

http://www.birdsinthebelfry.com/mana...the_lineup.htm

Last, but not least, dated 7/2003: Why Not 3rd MLB Team in NYC (Another Ebbets Field?)

I have just finished reading "May the Best Team Win", by Andrew Zimbalist. Mr. Zimbalist is a professor of economics who brings forth some interesting facts about the economics of baseball.
Below are some of the theories he put forth, along with my interpretations.

Essentially the book holds that many of baseball's problems would be solved by removing baseball's antitrust exemption.

Also he recommends Congress consider forced divestiture of the mononopoly of MLB into two competiting leagues. These leagues could collaborate on playing rules and engage in postseason play, but would not be able to divy up metropolitan markets, collude on broadcasting policy, etc.

With two competing leagues, the Yankees and Mets would find an additional team or two to compete with in the NY City market. Based upon the population of NYC, there should be more than two teams.

This would be good for MLB, the fans of NYC (more choices and lower prices) , and the competitive balance of baseball.

If the Yankees (and Mets) had to share the NY Market with additional teams, much of their competitive advantage would disappear. Bowie Kuhn recommended a 3rd team be placed in NYC, ( as there used to be three).

With or without two leagues, I think this might be a good way to improve competition in MLB. Instead of relocating the Expos to DC,why not relocate them to Brooklyn!

I read The Boys of Summer, and it sounds like the Brooklyn Dodgers were a great baseball franchise. Going to the Brooklyn Dodger games at Ebbets field in the 1950's was magical for the author.

Although a new Brooklyn team wouldn't have Jackie Robinson, Carl Furillo, or Gil Hodges, it would certainly bring back some great memories for those with a few miles on them.

I don't know if it would be feasible to place the 3rd NYC team in Brooklyn, but the 3rd NYC baseball franchise somewhere in New York City should be seriously considered.

[Saxmania]

Here's another fine example of bobby's writings, dated 12/2002:

Actually, he's right about another team in NYC (although not at the expense of the Nationals, of course - maybe one of the Florida teams, or as part of expansion to 32 teams). And technically leading off your best hitter might well result in more runs scored in total, although I doubt the players would go for it.

But I concur that bobby's brain was a surreal and wonderful thing when he felt inclined to share its workings with us.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[yanksphan]

Miggy speaks...

Tejada forcefully defended his actions in the Rafael Palmeiro steroid scandal, saying his reputation has been unfairly damaged, and that his trade demand, which embarrassed an organization already hoping to regain legitimacy, was justified because it was meant to improve the team.

"How is it possible that everything I've worked so hard for has been damaged because I used B-12?"

"I've been in a baseball for nine years now and my name is tarnished now because of this? Why? I know I am good role model. And up until now I've proven to be as such. The only time I've had a problem is now. And the only thing I did was to try to help a friend by giving him B-12, and to tell him how to use it. I didn't commit any crime."

"The same thing I'm telling you now, is the same thing I will say in other interviews and the same thing I will tell Congress and the president," Tejada said. "To Congress, to whoever, it's time to leave me alone because I didn't do anything wrong. Tell that to everyone."

"They can check me all the times they want," Tejada said. "I have nothing to hide. You tell Congress that the only thing I've ever done is work hard. I've never had the need to do anything illegal. I don't understand why things are being fabricated about me. They checked me and they checked the B-12 and both were fine.

"My name has been tarnished now and it's not fair. I haven't done anything to anybody. I just used B-12. For something that I did for a friend why should I be treated as a criminal? I'm not a person who likes to speak much, but I want people to know that this affects me and makes me feel bad, all of these rumors that are out there about me."

I've done nothing wrong, even if I did put it into my body 40 times," he said. "I have done nothing illegal. If I had been using something illegal in my body it would be that Miguel Tejada would be finished by now because I play hard. And everybody knows I play hard. And somebody who has done something illegal to their body can't play the game as hard as I do."

"Because a body won't respond to how I play the game. I am a natural person."

He seems like a good guy to me, but for some reason, I just have a tough time believing him....I do hope for his sake that he didn't or else these quotes are going to look just like Raffy's finger-pointing quote in Congress.

[Slidemaster]

Any word on Roberts' recovery?

I agree that Baltimore will not be a pushover like some think with Bedard and Cabrera under Mazzone. I still think they are the 4th best team in a very good AL East.

All reports have been that he's on target for coming back very close to opening day, if not on it. It's projected that he'll start spring training a week or two after the team, but he won't be far behind.

[Jersey Yankee]

Actually, he's right about another team in NYC (although not at the expense of the Nationals, of course - maybe one of the Florida teams, or as part of expansion to 32 teams). And technically leading off your best hitter might well result in more runs scored in total, although I doubt the players would go for it.

But I concur that bobby's brain was a surreal and wonderful thing when he felt inclined to share its workings with us.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

In that thread, he'd started that instead of another team in the MD/DC/VA area, that NYC should get another team instead. That way, we'd suffer the burden of having *THREE* teams in our are, rather than just one.

I'm not too sure about geography, but I'd garner that Yankee Stadium and Shea Stadium are much closer than Camden Yards is to RFK Stadium. If we can have two AL & NL teams being that close together and within the same large city, then why is he so opposed to having the same within the same metropolitan area?

As to leading off with Giambi, he's not even a fast runner. He may get on base by walks a bit, but you're wasting scoring opportunities there. I say that the lighter and fleet of foot guys should bat leadoff and in the 2-hole, letting the heavier and more muscled guys drive 'em in.

As to bobby's brain ... ehhhhh, lemme finish my 2nd helping of "mushed" potatoes first, then I'll get back to ya.

[BronxByTheBay]

Actually, he's right about another team in NYC (although not at the expense of the Nationals, of course - maybe one of the Florida teams, or as part of expansion to 32 teams). And technically leading off your best hitter might well result in more runs scored in total, although I doubt the players would go for it.

But I concur that bobby's brain was a surreal and wonderful thing when he felt inclined to share its workings with us.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

It ain't baseball until Bobby Jr. makes his first post of the season.

[#1PaFan]

It ain't baseball until Bobby Jr. makes his first post of the season.

Absolutely! I'm really looking forward to it!

[WHIP]

It ain't baseball until Bobby Jr. makes his first post of the season.

Best done by quoting Angelos.

[Why Not?]

I'm not too sure about geography, but I'd garner that Yankee Stadium and Shea Stadium are much closer than Camden Yards is to RFK Stadium. If we can have two AL & NL teams being that close together and within the same large city, then why is he so opposed to having the same within the same metropolitan area?

Because New York's population is three times higher than DC/Baltimore's. Other than New York and L.A. and maybe Chicago, I don't think any other markets are capable of supporting two healthy teams over the long term. There's a reason the Braves moved from Boston, the Browns moved from St. Louis and the A's will need to move from the Bay area.

The Mets/Yanks draw from the NY Metro area's 21 million people (essentially 10.5 million for each team). No other franchises have that sort of population lving so close to their ballparks. The Orioles/Nats draw from the DC/Baltimore Metro area's 7 million people (3.5 million each).

If the Expos had moved to Jersey, the three NY teams would share 21 million (7 million each) and the Orioles would still be drawing from a population of 7 million as well. Seems fair to me.

http://www.census.gov/population/cen...c-t3/tab03.pdf

[YankyDave]

Because New York's population is three times higher than DC/Baltimore's. Other than New York and L.A. and maybe Chicago, I don't think any other markets are capable of supporting two healthy teams over the long term. There's a reason the Braves moved from Boston, the Browns moved from St. Louis and the A's will need to move from the Bay area.

The Mets/Yanks draw from the NY Metro area's 21 million people (essentially 10.5 million for each team). No other franchises have that sort of population lving so close to their ballparks. The Orioles/Nats draw from the DC/Baltimore Metro area's 7 million people (3.5 million each).

If the Expos had moved to Jersey, the three NY teams would share 21 million (7 million each) and the Orioles would still be drawing from a population of 7 million as well. Seems fair to me.

http://www.census.gov/population/cen...c-t3/tab03.pdf

Yeah but that's ignoring that baseball actually did something right in moving the team to D.C.

[Why Not?]

Yeah but that's ignoring that baseball actually did something right in moving the team to D.C.

We'll see if it was a good move or not sometime down the road.

Obviously the Expos were wilting on the vine in Montreal and Washington was the obvious destination. But in the end the trade-off might be turning one financially successful franchise (Balmer) and one nearly-dead franchise (Montreal) into two middling ones. OR it could eventually turn either the Orioles or Nationals into a team that can only stay afloat by existing with a minimal payroll (like Oakland).

Moving the team to Jersey really wasn't an option at the time, but doing so in the future might help level the financial playing field.

[YankyDave]

We'll see if it was a good move or not sometime down the road.

Obviously the Expos were wilting on the vine in Montreal and Washington was the obvious destination. But in the end the trade-off might be turning one financially successful franchise (Balmer) and one nearly-dead franchise (Montreal) into two middling ones. OR it could eventually turn either the Orioles or Nationals into a team that can only stay afloat by existing with a minimal payroll (like Oakland).

Moving the team to Jersey really wasn't an option at the time, but doing so in the future might help level the financial playing field.

Both teams drew well last year and that was a new team and an Angelos run Orioles. If they had equitable television deals, they would both be top tier in terms of finances.

[Why Not?]

Both teams drew well last year and that was a new team and an Angelos run Orioles. If they had equitable television deals, they would both be top tier in terms of finances.

Orioles attendance is 10K fewer per game than it was 10 years ago. Losing will do that to you. Meanwhile, "baseball-starved" Washington drew only about 1,000 more per game that the Orioles despite being in first place for much of the summer. Their The Nationals attendance will dive in 2006, spike again when (if) the new ballpark is built, then settle in at about the league average.

I would expect the O's and Nats to collectively to be similar to Oakland/San Fran., which share a similarly-sized market.

[Saxmania]

Meanwhile, "baseball-starved" Washington drew only about 1,000 more per game that the Orioles despite being in first place for much of the summer.

I would think that was partly due to the fact that RFK is pretty old and lacks modern ballpark features. It's also a little smaller than Camden Yards (or whatever the Orioles are calling it at the moment), which would suppress attendance during sellouts.

To spin it another way, despite the Orioles having 18-20 visits from two of the biggest names in baseball (the Yankees and the Red Sox), a far bigger payroll, a better park, a marquee baseball name in Tejada, and a team that was also strong in its division for the first half of the year, they still were outdrawn by a franchise decimated by poor trades and lack of payroll, in a delapidated park, and with an entrenched competitor 50 miles away.

Cuts both ways.

EDIT - also, I think DC would be the perfect market for a luxury-box heavy park with all the trimmings. Lots of lobbyists and PR firms around to take advantage and plow other people's money into the franchise. RFK seems to me like a big handicap to that eventual goal. Before deciding that this isn't a big issue, remember how keen the Yankees are to move to a smaller park, partly so that this issue can be addressed.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[Jersey Yankee]

Because New York's population is three times higher than DC/Baltimore's. Other than New York and L.A. and maybe Chicago, I don't think any other markets are capable of supporting two healthy teams over the long term. There's a reason the Braves moved from Boston, the Browns moved from St. Louis and the A's will need to move from the Bay area.

The Mets/Yanks draw from the NY Metro area's 21 million people (essentially 10.5 million for each team). No other franchises have that sort of population lving so close to their ballparks. The Orioles/Nats draw from the DC/Baltimore Metro area's 7 million people (3.5 million each).

If the Expos had moved to Jersey, the three NY teams would share 21 million (7 million each) and the Orioles would still be drawing from a population of 7 million as well. Seems fair to me.

http://www.census.gov/population/cen...c-t3/tab03.pdf

I haven't gone into details as to why the Braves and Browns moved. Before the Highlanders, the Yanks were in Baltimore playing as the Orioles. What have you heard as to why those teams moved?

As to the Yanks and Mets getting 21 million fans apiece, how in the world do you get that? Granted, you have a link to the US Census, but how do they figure who amongst those people are Yankee and/or Mets fans? They could be Knicks or Braves fans, for all I know.

18 million in NY; 8 million NJ; I'm not sure how many are in CT. I'm not sure where the 21m figure comes from.

As to the Expos moving to NJ, perhaps you need to put down your calculator for awhile and just use your noggin. Both George and Wilpon would've vehemently vetoed such a move. Figuratively speaking, had that happened, do you really think that the Yanks and Mets would *BOTH* lose a full 1/3 of their fan base to a team formerly in Montreal, to which they had no prior connection? A team which has been here for 103 years, another one for 44 years will *BOTH* lose *ONE THIRD* of their fan base to a team that played in Montreal? Since when?

Also, why would NY/CT fans of the Yanks (on the non-NE side of CT, obviously) want to become fans of a NJ team? Why would NY fans of the Yanks or Mets want to become fans of a NJ team? Is there a legion of Nets or Devils fans in NY/CT?

I say that it would be mostly NJ fans who'd root for any NJ incarnation of the team formerly known as the Expos. There's no way people from NY would be head over heels over a NJ team whose players weren't in the local papers every day, unlike the Yanks and Mets players.

[Why Not?]

18 million in NY; 8 million NJ; I'm not sure how many are in CT. I'm not sure where the 21m figure comes from.

Also, why would NY/CT fans of the Yanks (on the non-NE side of CT, obviously) want to become fans of a NJ team? Why would NY fans of the Yanks or Mets want to become fans of a NJ team? Is there a legion of Nets or Devils fans in NY/CT?

I don't know how those figures are calculated, but the point is valid: A lot of people live in New York.

There are more McDonald's, more car washes and more strip joints in the New York metro area than there are in the the DC/Baltimore metro area because the larger population is able to support those business ventures. Why wouldn't the same logic apply to baseball teams?

Obviously, people wouldn't instantly drop their allegiance to the Yanks or Mets to root for a new team in Jersey. But over time, people who live in Jersey would go to the more convenient ballpark more often and go to the Bronx or Queens less often. They might not become fans of the Jersey Expos, but their children probably will......especially if the Yankees stop winning as often (which is a dream I have about twice a week).

Why, on one hand, should a population of about 7 million be expected to support two teams while a population of about 21 million supporting three teams is outrageous?

[Why Not?]

Cuts both ways.

EDIT - also, I think DC would be the perfect market for a luxury-box heavy park with all the trimmings. Lots of lobbyists and PR firms around to take advantage and plow other people's money into the franchise. RFK seems to me like a big handicap to that eventual goal. Before deciding that this isn't a big issue, remember how keen the Yankees are to move to a smaller park, partly so that this issue can be addressed.

Acutually, RFK has about 8,000 more seats than Camden Yards.

Oh, it cuts both ways. It cuts ALL ways. Both teams are going to draw fewer fans because of the presence of the other team. That's really the point. Adding a team in DC is going to handcuff the Orioles (not that Angelos has needed any help driving the team into the ground).

Similarly, the Nats are going to suffer because of the ballpark 25 miles up I-95. Voila, two middling franchises.

[YankyDave]

I don't know how those figures are calculated, but the point is valid: A lot of people live in New York.

There are more McDonald's, more car washes and more strip joints in the New York metro area than there are in the the DC/Baltimore metro area because the larger population is able to support those business ventures. Why wouldn't the same logic apply to baseball teams?

Because baseball teams are not remotely the same as any other business. You can't just prop one in and expect because there are a certain number of people it will draw them.

Obviously, people wouldn't instantly drop their allegiance to the Yanks or Mets to root for a new team in Jersey. But over time, people who live in Jersey would go to the more convenient ballpark more often and go to the Bronx or Queens less often. They might not become fans of the Jersey Expos, but their children probably will......especially if the Yankees stop winning as often (which is a dream I have about twice a week).

Why, on one hand, should a population of about 7 million be expected to support two teams while a population of about 21 million supporting three teams is outrageous?

Because it just makes no sense. You cannot just use the numbers and say that it will work.

Also, you can't do the same thing with Washington and Baltimore. They are two completely separate towns, not one big one. There are more than enough people to fully support both teams and do it quite well because there is money to be made from corporate sales and from television.

Having the Nats around does minimal damage to the O's. Even with an 8th consecutive losing team fielded by Peter the Greed, the O's still made more money than any other team. They still drew a respectable number of fans.

RFK's size means nada. While I don't think it's a horrible place to see a game, a new stadium with all the amenities that come with that will draw well for many years regardless of the team. If the new owners field a decent team, I would expect a new stadium for the Nats to sell out for many years just like the O's did in OPACY.

[Why Not?]

Also, you can't do the same thing with Washington and Baltimore. They are two completely separate towns, not one big one. There are more than enough people to fully support both teams and do it quite well because there is money to be made from corporate sales and from television.

RFK's size means nada. While I don't think it's a horrible place to see a game, a new stadium with all the amenities that come with that will draw well for many years regardless of the team. If the new owners field a decent team, I would expect a new stadium for the Nats to sell out for many years just like the O's did in OPACY.

I only mentioned RFK's capacity in response to Saxmania's post.

You're right, you can't just plant a team in a place where there are a lot of people and assume it will succeed. Yet that is essentially what baseball has done in moving to D.C. It's a wealthy, thriving metropolis with a large number of people, so they put a team there. Why is that different than putting a theoretical team in Jersey, which also has a large number of people? At least Jersey doesn't have a distinct history of NOT supporting baseball.

DC and Baltimore are most assuredly NOT completely seperate towns. Historically they are but realistically, they are not. Nearly all demographic studies consider them to be one. As areas like Howard County and Anne Arundel County continue to explode with growth, DC and Balmer will grow together even more. One metropolis with two "downtown" hubs and many smaller hubs like Ballston, Tysons Corner, Bethesda and, eventually, Annapolis and Frederick.

I share your opinion of RFK, but we're both baseball fans who care enough to waste our time on debates like this. I suspect we'd both enjoy baseball games regardless of where they are played. But not everyone is like you and me in that regard.

Why would you expect a new ballpark in DC to sell out for many years? While Camden Yards and Jacobs Field sold out for a few years, other new ballparks have NOT had similar success. Baltimore and Cleveland has been the exception, not the rule. Look at attendance numbers for cities with new ballparks, the honeymoon doesn't last long. Texas, Detroit, Houston, Atlanta, Philly....all those teams' attendance is roughly what it was in the final years of their "old" parks.

[NelsonMuntz]

DC and Baltimore are separate markets that can easily support two teams.

[NelsonMuntz]

Meanwhile, "baseball-starved" Washington drew only about 1,000 more per game that the Orioles despite being in first place for much of the summer.

Yes, despite having no owner, no marquee players, zero marketing, and a TV deal that makes it impossible for about 85% of the DC area to ever see the team on television, they still outdrew the Orioles. Somehow you managed to spin that as a negative for the Nationals. Nice job.

[Why Not?]

Yes, despite having no owner, no marquee players, zero marketing, and a TV deal that makes it impossible for about 85% of the DC area to ever see the team on television, they still outdrew the Orioles. Somehow you managed to spin that as a negative for the Nationals. Nice job.

It isn't about how the Nationals draw vs. the Orioles. Why wouldn't they outdraw the Orioles? But will they continue to outdraw the Orioles? My guess is no.

Look at how the Nationals drew in their first season compared to other first-year franchises. The Nationals put a better product on the field than any team in the expansion era. But among recent expansion teams, they outdrew only Tampa (by about 1,000 per game). And that's not even taking into account that DC had more no-shows than normal, which is amazing when considering the novelty factor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062902945.html

[Why Not?]

DC and Baltimore are separate markets that can easily support two teams.

It's nice that you think DC and Baltimore are seperate markets, but every source I can find disagrees with you. The cities have grown together. So while some people and organizations might consider them two individual places, in reality they are one metropolis with two baseball teams.

From the Bureau of Labor statistics:

"Note to users: Before the 1990 Census, the Census Bureau had defined Washington, DC-MD-VA, and Baltimore, MD, as separate metropolitan areas. Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV is now defined as one metropolitan area."


http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/3/2426.html



And if DC and Baltimore can easily support two teams with a population of 7 million, why couldn't New York support three teams with a population 21 million?

[Saxmania]

Acutually, RFK has about 8,000 more seats than Camden Yards.

Really? Ballparks.com says the Orioles can seat 48,262, while RFK is at 45,016. I think you're looking at the figure for football games, which is up to 55,672 - a number which doesn't really apply here.

Let me know if I'm missing something.

Oh, it cuts both ways. It cuts ALL ways. Both teams are going to draw fewer fans because of the presence of the other team. That's really the point. Adding a team in DC is going to handcuff the Orioles (not that Angelos has needed any help driving the team into the ground).

I don't understand that last sentence. The Yankees had sole ownership of New York for a few years, but then the Mets came along. Did that 'handcuff' the Yankees? While the Baltimore/DC combined area may not be as populous as NYC, it's plenty big enough.

I think a healthier way to consider it is that the Orioles had a monopoly on a combined metropolitan area that could easily support two teams for decades. Just because MLB has corrected this mistake doesn't mean that the Orioles are now 'handcuffed', just that they had 30 or so years of advantage that they used to win 3 World Series and establish a pretty good fanbase.

The fact that the monopoly is now broken should be a cause for satisfaction among people who believe in the free market in baseball. Artificially restricting competition is generally considered a bad thing

Similarly, the Nats are going to suffer because of the ballpark 25 miles up I-95. Voila, two middling franchises.

The Orioles were middling before the Nationals came along, thanks to Angelos and some pretty poor decisions. The Nationals were bad before their move, so middling is actually an improvement to them.

7m should be enough to support two teams. The greater Chicago population is 7.9m; the Bay Area is about the same. Both areas host two teams who have been competitive in recent years - the DC area should be no different in that sense. I just don't see the downside of introducing competition into a market that, history tells us, is more than big enough to support 2 competitive teams.

I'm all for a 3rd team in New York as part of expansion/relocation. I'd love a team back in Brooklyn. But at the moment that's not a likely scenario, because there are other cities without one franchise higher up the queue. DC now has its team, and I'm looking forward to watching the Orioles deal with the end of their artificial monopoly. So far, not good, but they've only themselves to blame.

Be seeing you,

Saxmania

[sprucemoose]

Also, why would NY/CT fans of the Yanks (on the non-NE side of CT, obviously) want to become fans of a NJ team? Why would NY fans of the Yanks or Mets want to become fans of a NJ team? Is there a legion of Nets or Devils fans in NY/CT?.

Puddy. But he's the only one I know of......

[SoCal Pinstriper]

DC and Baltimore are separate markets that can easily support two teams.

The NFL seems to think so.

[NelsonMuntz]

It's nice that you think DC and Baltimore are seperate markets, but every source I can find disagrees with you. The cities have grown together. So while some people and organizations might consider them two individual places, in reality they are one metropolis with two baseball teams.

From the Bureau of Labor statistics:

"Note to users: Before the 1990 Census, the Census Bureau had defined Washington, DC-MD-VA, and Baltimore, MD, as separate metropolitan areas. Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV is now defined as one metropolitan area."


http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/3/2426.html



And if DC and Baltimore can easily support two teams with a population of 7 million, why couldn't New York support three teams with a population 21 million?

Same MSA, different PMSA's. But so what? They are still separate media markets. We get the DC TV affiliates of Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS etc. in DC. Baltimore has their own affiliates. Ask any DC resident if he/she considers himself a "Baltimorian" and they will laugh at you. Similarly, ask and Baltimore resident if he/she is a "Washingtonian" and you will get the same reaction. They are two very different cities with distinct personalities and a large enough population between the two to support two teams.

And the DC suburbs of Northern Virginia have been growing exponentially in recent years. In fact, Loudon County (Virginia) was the fastest growing county in the country last year. Because of the traffic congestion in the DC area, it can take 2 - 3 hours to drive from Northern VA to Baltimore making it virtually almost impossible for a Loudon County resident to make it to an Orioles game during the week. Conversely, a good deal of fans at Nationals games last year came from the Northern Virginia suburbs.

[YankyDave]

The census bureau and others do not distinguish between the two because they were unable to come up with a dividing line, not because they are one big market. As was mentioned, they have separate tv stations and newspapers and no one from either town would want to be confused with the other. Baltimore is a blue collar shipyard town and D.C. is government, law and technology. They create incredibly differences among the people, even the sports fans.

Baseball did not just plop a team in D.C. because there were people. It was because there were people with money in one of the fastest growing towns in America. It was because, unlike north Jersey, there was a yearning for the team.

Anyone who makes cracks about D.C. not supporting a team does not know his history. For the most part, the attendance for the Senators was middle of the road while the team was abysmal. Regardless, this is not my father's Washington. It is twice the size it was when the Senators left in 72. The average income is one of the highest in the country and there is an ample mass transit system which did not exist.

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

It's nice that you think DC and Baltimore are seperate markets, but every source I can find disagrees with you.

I suppose if one doesn't look for sources, one won't find any.

[NelsonMuntz]

Anyone who makes cracks about D.C. not supporting a team does not know his history. For the most part, the attendance for the Senators was middle of the road while the team was abysmal. Regardless, this is not my father's Washington. It is twice the size it was when the Senators left in 72. The average income is one of the highest in the country and there is an ample mass transit system which did not exist.

Using a fans-per-wins formula, the Senators were actually one of the best-supported teams in baseball during that era. And as you noted, the DC area has changed dramatically since 1972.

[Jersey Yankee]

I don't know how those figures are calculated, but the point is valid: A lot of people live in New York.

There are more McDonald's, more car washes and more strip joints in the New York metro area than there are in the the DC/Baltimore metro area because the larger population is able to support those business ventures. Why wouldn't the same logic apply to baseball teams?

Obviously, people wouldn't instantly drop their allegiance to the Yanks or Mets to root for a new team in Jersey. But over time, people who live in Jersey would go to the more convenient ballpark more often and go to the Bronx or Queens less often. They might not become fans of the Jersey Expos, but their children probably will......especially if the Yankees stop winning as often (which is a dream I have about twice a week).

Why, on one hand, should a population of about 7 million be expected to support two teams while a population of about 21 million supporting three teams is outrageous?

If you don't know how those figures are calculated, then why did you even introduce them? How does someone possibly quantify how many Yankee fans there are in NY/NJ/CT? I've never received some Official Census asking me which baseball team I've ever supported. Have you?

Yes, it's obvious there are more people living in NY/NJ/CT than in the DC/VA/MD area. However, you stated that 10.5 million Yankee fans (presuming of course, that they had the exact same amount of fans as do the Mets) would then have to share the total 21m equally amongst three teams. If that were the case, then 7m would be 2/3 of 10.5m.

Number one, I believe that since the Yanks are a much more storied and winning organization, as well as have countless players in Cooperstown, they would have much more fans than would the Mets.

Number two, there's *NO WAY IN HECK* that some newbie team would garner as many fans in NY/NJ/CT as would the Yankees. I don't care which survey you show me, it ain't happenin', bud.

As to people eventually dropping their allegiances, yeah, I'm sure that the team their family grew up rooting for, from grandparents to parents to themselves and now their kids, would really be dropped over a period of time by them. Do you really expect this to happen?

The 1954 Baltimore Orioles represented the team's first season in that city, since in 1953, they were the St Louis Browns. They have neither the length of time in the same city as the Yanks, nor do they have 26 rings, which obviously creates more fans. That creates something you've left out of your discussion:

*TEAM LOYALTY*

The Mets, based upon Judge William A. Shea's search for a new team, represented the loss of both the NY Giants and the Brooklyn Dodgers. Hence the royal blue from Dodgers Blue and the orange from the Giants' orange & black colors.

A few devout Brooklyn fans said that the Mets were never their team, but they do enjoy the Mets' attempts to congratulate the Dodgers, especially last April 15th, which was some Jackie Robinson Day, since Apr 15 1947 was Jackie's debut. See also the thread re the revamped Shea Stadium looking somewhat like Ebbets Field. I've heard that Fred Wilpon grew up in Brooklyn.

Those are two teams which carry history with them: The historical Yankee team, as well as the team which took some (but not all) fans of the Dodgers and Giants.

The Nationals have absolutely *NO HISTORY* or connection to the NY/NJ/CT area. There's just *NO WAY IN HECK* they would take a full 1/3 from the fans of each of the Yanks and Mets. Perhaps 5-10%, then followed by people who may not have followed baseball much in the first place.

Either way, that new team, if formed, would be a distant 3rd in terms of fans.

As to the thought of sharing, since Angelos got some kind of payment from MLB, let him be happy with that. We've already got 2 teams here, so I don't see any logic for us having *THREE TEAMS* here, one of which has *NO HISTORICAL CONNECTION* to us. The Nats, since they used RFK Stadium, where the Washington Senators had played, at least have some kind of historical connection to the DC/MD/VA area.

[Why Not?]

Anyone who makes cracks about D.C. not supporting a team does not know his history. For the most part, the attendance for the Senators was middle of the road while the team was abysmal. Regardless, this is not my father's Washington. It is twice the size it was when the Senators left in 72. The average income is one of the highest in the country and there is an ample mass transit system which did not exist.

What would you base your history on? The numbers say Senators attendance was only occasionally "middle of the road" I realize the teams were terrible, but even when the Senators were competitive, attendance was only so-so. It's a chicken-and-egg argument, was the team bad because they had no support? Or did they lack support because the team was so bad?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/te...X/attend.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/te...N/attend.shtml

The original Senators, who played 60 years in an eight-team league:
--Finished last in attendance 14 times
--Finished seventh 19 times, in those years usually beating out only the St. Louis Browns.
--Finished 4th in the league five times
--Finished 2nd or 3rd five times

So for 50 of their 60 years, they were almost always in the bottom third of the league. The attendance was terrible. Perhaps only the Browns and, ironically, the Expos have been as consistently bad.

The expansion Senators ('61-'71) were 8th, 9th or last every season from 61-68, jumped to 6th in a 12-team AL in 1969 then back to 8th and 11th their final two seasons.

I don't question MLB's decision to put baseball back in DC. It was an obvious choice. I just don't think it's a given that baseball in DC will thrive. I also think the team in DC will hinder the Orioles (which is why I feel passionate about the subject). Even if you don't want to admit it, the Orioles draw many fans as well as TV and radio revenue from the DC area. MLB knew this, which is why they settled financially with Angelos.

Though both areas have questions, I think Jersey would have been just as good a choice as DC because of the larger pool of people from which to draw. That was my original point in this debate.

You're right that this isn't your father's DC. But that's not always a positive. Since 1970, DC has become more wealthy. But it has also become more transient, more far-flung and more ethnically diverse. Fewer residents of this area have roots here than in other cities, mostly because of government work. The middle class families that lived in Arlington, Falls Church or Silver Spring in 1971 have moved to Frederick, Sterling or, in my case, West Virginia. The imigration that streams into the area from central America will fill RFK for international soccer friendlies vs. Honduras, but they aren't going to Nationals games.

I think the 2005 Nationals attendance is telling. New teams and new ballparks typically create a buzz, then the numbers fall off.

Colorado led the NL in attendance their first seven years.
Florida was fifth and sixth its first two years, less than 15 years into their existence, the owners want to move.
Arizona was second its first year, then 5th, 6th, 9th, 2nd, 5th, 8th and 12th.
Tampa Bay was seventh its first year, then 10th, then last ever since.
Washington was 8th its first year.


Teams rarely draw as many fans as they did in their first season. It's a somewhat predictable pattern. Washington looks more like Tampa Bay than the other expansion teams and nearly everyone admits now that putting a team in Tampa was a mistake. Shouldn't we expect an attendance drop in D.C. similar to the others? Why should we expect attendance to skyrocket when every other team's numbers go downhill?

[Jersey Yankee]

Puddy. But he's the only one I know of......

Who's Puddy?