Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Friday, October 08, 2004 |
A Note On The Angels' "Bandwagon Fans"
As so often happens, it seems the chimps descend upon the fan forums at angelsbaseball.com after a significant victory. One of the charges that always comes up is that the Angels have only bandwagon fans, who only showed up after the team won it all in 2002. Hmph. The Angels outdrew the Red Sox this year, last year, and every year from 1979 to 1990 save for 1988. Dear trolls: at least look at the numbers before making conspicuously stupid and falsifiable comments.
Update: An anonymous commenter reminds me to look at the park capacities over that time. Good idea. Anaheim Stadium was expanded in 1979 to accommodate the Rams, with a capacity of 64,593 until 1997, when it was reduced to 33,851. Fenway seated from 33,465 to a maximum of 34,182 over that time. So, yes, Fenway was nearly half the size of the Angels' home park, whatever it may have been called over that time. But the Sox managed this year to sell out every home game, a record, to put attendance at 2,837,304, averaging 35,028 per game. So, sure, there's something to that charge; Fenway could only hold so many. But what was their excuse when the Angels exceeded their sales but were under Fenway capacity, which was the case nearly every year in 1979-1990?
Comments:
I don't think attendance figures are a fair way to assess fan base, because (as Anon above points out) Fenway is a much smaller stadium than is Angel Stadium.
It's probably safe to assume that the Red Sox have a larger "solid" (or hard core) fan base than most other clubs. I mean, it has been 86 years since they won anything, and they still sell out that stadium every night. But it's not like the Angels are slouches in that category either. It’s also safe to assume that Southern California clubs (in all sports) have a larger than normal “fluid” fan base (I suppose you could call them fair-weather fans), simply because there’s so much to do. If the Angels, Dodgers, Lakers, Ducks, Kings, or whatever isn’t doing well, there’s always another team, sport, or entertainment venue to choose- more so than any other city. It doesn't mean they don't still love the team- it just means they would rather spend their money elsewhere.
So it’s not really a fair characterization either way, IMO.
It's probably safe to assume that the Red Sox have a larger "solid" (or hard core) fan base than most other clubs. I mean, it has been 86 years since they won anything, and they still sell out that stadium every night. But it's not like the Angels are slouches in that category either. It’s also safe to assume that Southern California clubs (in all sports) have a larger than normal “fluid” fan base (I suppose you could call them fair-weather fans), simply because there’s so much to do. If the Angels, Dodgers, Lakers, Ducks, Kings, or whatever isn’t doing well, there’s always another team, sport, or entertainment venue to choose- more so than any other city. It doesn't mean they don't still love the team- it just means they would rather spend their money elsewhere.
So it’s not really a fair characterization either way, IMO.
Sorry, Richard, I just don't agree. Fans paying to put their asses in the seats are a hallmark of a successful franchise, based either on expectation or delivery of winning seasons. The roar and bluster from Fenway about Angels' fans being somehow inferior is quantitatively disprovable. They had the opportunity to prove their superiority with cold, hard cash -- why didn't they?
yankees will take care of the red sox (again), and they'll be soon back to their self-pitying, crying ways. nobody knows how to lose like boston... 1918, chowdheads.
mattkew
mattkew
# posted by 
: 10/09/2004 05:34:00 AM
: 10/09/2004 05:34:00 AM
As someone who would frequently attend games at Anaheim Stadium in the years leading to the Angels exciting and miraculous World Series victory, they attracted anywhere from 16,000-24,000 on a good night.
During the year of their championship run, and just like the 80's the fans all of a sudden showed-up out of nowhere. If they aren't bandwagon fans, then what are they? Rob, even though you do get a pass because you are a "baseball fan" in general, you do have to admit that it wasn't a far jump from Dodger Stadium to Anaheim now was it!
During the year of their championship run, and just like the 80's the fans all of a sudden showed-up out of nowhere. If they aren't bandwagon fans, then what are they? Rob, even though you do get a pass because you are a "baseball fan" in general, you do have to admit that it wasn't a far jump from Dodger Stadium to Anaheim now was it!
# posted by : 10/09/2004 02:07:00 PM
: 10/09/2004 02:07:00 PM
I think you miss my point, Anon. The theory is that the Red Sox fan has some kind of iron backbone to keep him in the stands and happily gobbling whatever product appears in the Fenway fens; that's clearly bogus, as evidenced by the higher attendance at Angel Stadium in those dark days. It comes down to on-field performance, period.
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.