Jump to content

Hamiton signs with LAA


flavum

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 09:41 PM)
I think that is part of the Sox attendance problem. They just don't have that one player that draws people to a stadium. Sale might be close to that, but the Big Hurt was probably the last player the Sox had that brought in the casual fan.

 

I don't think he had that much of an effect, and the numbers don't show it either. He arrived right when the new park opened, then the 93 & 94 Sox were really good teams, so that's why attendance was high. Then the strike happened and attendance dropped 30%, Big Hurt or no Big Hurt.

 

I don't think a single player has that much of an effect on baseball attendance, other than the occasional stud pitcher or HR freak like Bonds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (The Ginger Kid @ Dec 15, 2012 -> 05:44 PM)
It's a shame the Sox couldn't have taken a run at Hamilton. I know it doesn't make a lot of sense financially given the tight purse strings of Reinsdorf, but what a splash he would've been. He's the kind of player that puts fans in the seats, not just at home but on the road too.
Angels signed Pujols last year to a longer and more lucrative deal, and the attendance in Anaheim did not go up. It went DOWN.

 

Hamilton is NOT a "fannies in seats guy". If Albert Pujols, a legit HOFer in waiting, cant bring in the fans, then why would a drug addict already on the decline do it for fans?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 04:39 PM)
Angels signed Pujols last year to a longer and more lucrative deal, and the attendance in Anaheim did not go up. It went DOWN.

 

Hamilton is NOT a "fannies in seats guy". If Albert Pujols, a legit HOFer in waiting, cant bring in the fans, then why would a drug addict already on the decline do it for fans?

 

Attendance went down by 150,000. They probably increased ticket prices accordingly, and ended up making money out of the whole deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 04:39 PM)
Angels signed Pujols last year to a longer and more lucrative deal, and the attendance in Anaheim did not go up. It went DOWN.

 

Hamilton is NOT a "fannies in seats guy". If Albert Pujols, a legit HOFer in waiting, cant bring in the fans, then why would a drug addict already on the decline do it for fans?

Though I agree with the main premise of your post, his statistics argue against the whole decline thing. Not that I don't expect decline moving forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Angels signed Pujols last year to a longer and more lucrative deal, and the attendance in Anaheim did not go up. It went DOWN.

 

Hamilton is NOT a "fannies in seats guy". If Albert Pujols, a legit HOFer in waiting, cant bring in the fans, then why would a drug addict already on the decline do it for fans?

 

I think it's more the cumulative effect of having such an incredible lineup that might excite fans to go to more games.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...