Misprint?

[Brian McKenna]

total baseball has the senators attendence at 89,000 in 1917

looking at the rest of the league and the senators track record it might seem that it should read 189,000

either it is a misprint or washington was unduly affected by the war

if the latter is the case, did they get any compensation from the league for such?

[bluezebra]

total baseball has the senators attendence at 89,000 in 1917

looking at the rest of the league and the senators track record it might seem that it should read 189,000

either it is a misprint or washington was unduly affected by the war

if the latter is the case, did they get any compensation from the league for such?

From baseball-reference.com: Attendance: 89,682 (8th out of 8)

I highly doubt there was any compensation. The Senators attendance throughout their history was terrible. That's why they moved to Minnesota, and the newer franchise moved to Texas.

Bob

[baseballPAP]

And yet MLB decides its a good idea to plop a 3rd franchise in their laps Although, I believe the DC area is one of the fastest growing metroplitain areas in the States, so maybe it will stick this time.

[bluezebra]

Many of the people who live in DC, or in its surroundings are government workers. They came from somewhere else, and if they are fans, it's for the team "back home". They'll go to a game if their home team is playing. I don't go to Dodger Stadium unless the Cubs are in town. So, I doubt if the fans in DC will go to see the Nats just for themselves.

The Nationals will have to provide a winner soon, or the novelty will wear off. And it's back on the road again.

The original Senators drew over 1,000,000 ONCE. The next Senators (now the Rangers) NEVER drew a million. Some record.

Bob

[Bob Hannah]

I suppose the stigma of a historically lower than average draw will continue to lead some people to believe that is the destiny of D.C. baseball, Bob. I don't know what or how much you know of the D.C. area. Since 1971 so much has changed-population has more than doubled in the metro area to 4.5 million, the area is virtually recession proof and one of the more affluent areas of the nation per capita, the high tech and bio-tech industries are strong in the area. Television and media markets rank in the seventh to eighth largest in the country.

22,000 season tickets sold and a 2.7 million draw in '05 with virtually no marketing of the team tells me people will go to see the Nats just for themselves.

If a team wins, it draws. What this team needs most is ownership. Most "in the know" fans here desire local ownership from the Lerner or Malek groups. These groups have shown a willingness to commit to a competitive team.

[Bob Hannah]

total baseball has the senators attendence at 89,000 in 1917

1918 attendance was way down leaguewide due to the war (were schedules shortened?). Check the Braves (84,938) and Robins/Dodgers (83,831) teams of that year. Attendance in both cases was lower than the '17 Senators.

Business of Baseball

[Brian McKenna]

okay but that is 1918 and the senators attendance was 182,000

in 1917 the senators were 120,000+ short of any other al team

[Brian McKenna]

found this

[bluezebra]

I suppose the stigma of a historically lower than average draw will continue to lead some people to believe that is the destiny of D.C. baseball, Bob. I don't know what or how much you know of the D.C. area. Since 1971 so much has changed-population has more than doubled in the metro area to 4.5 million, the area is virtually recession proof and one of the more affluent areas of the nation per capita, the high tech and bio-tech industries are strong in the area. Television and media markets rank in the seventh to eighth largest in the country.

22,000 season tickets sold and a 2.7 million draw in '05 with virtually no marketing of the team tells me people will go to see the Nats just for themselves.

If a team wins, it draws. What this team needs most is ownership. Most "in the know" fans here desire local ownership from the Lerner or Malek groups. These groups have shown a willingness to commit to a competitive team.

There should be a team in DC. But, if it becomes, "Washington, first in war, first in peace, and last in the National League East (originally, American League), it's sayonara again. Let's see what happens when the honeymoon is over.

Bob

[johnny]

maybe we should start a poll

Given the history of DC teams ending up elsewhere such as MN or TX, where would this version likely end up. It's early but given the demographics and history, novelty is a horrible thing when it wears off.

[Bob Hannah]

They wouldn't be going anywhere soon. The agreement with Baseball keeps the team in place for 30 years.

I still find it astounding the same feelings are held by some who believe if a Washington team draws poorly they will move. There is a whole new set of dynamics in place in the D.C. area than in 1960-1971 (when not much changed from '60 through '71).

[Bob Hannah]

found this

Cool. I had a sneaking suspicion it waw influenced by WWI but could find nothing in my limited library.

I wonder if Brooklyn and the National Braves were similarly affected insome way the following year. The Red Sox, Yankees and Giants, however, didn't draw near as poor that year (I haven't considered percentage declines, though). Possibly more team specific reasons? I haven't looked it up and am wondering if the salaries were cut as the article suggests and the teams fielded by the Braves and Brooklyn just couldn't bring in the draw. Maybe the borough of Brooklyn and specific neighborhoods that supported the Braves were inordinately affected by the war.

[bluezebra]

[QUOTE=Bob Hannah]They wouldn't be going anywhere soon. The agreement with Baseball keeps the team in place for 30 years.

That's about as solid as agreements made by Congress, and the White House. Or the treaties this country made with the Native Americans. Those were broken before the ink dried.

It's the bottom line. Lose too much money for too long, and the U-Haul trucks will be lining up.

Bob

[Brian McKenna]

the nationals had 13 home doubleheaders that year - not too sure if that helped or hurt

[GrahamC]

I came across an interesting reason for the general decline in attendances across all clubs for the 1917 season. With so many young men signing up for the war, and being transferred to training venues across the country, it meant that the major target audience of baseball was no longer available to watch games. Another possible factor could have been the increase in working schedules due to the US involvement in the war made it difficult for workers to have enough spare time to attend games.