Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - Attendance Since 2000

Attendance Since 2000

In the past 12 years the Jays have been, well, kind of trapped. 6 years of 3rd place, 1 in 2nd, 1 in 5th, and now 4 straight years of 4th place. During this time attendance has been as mediocre as the team. But when do those fans come out? What does it take to get a crowd? Would it be smart for the Jays to spend millions on stars to push them over 90 wins, push for a move to the AL Central (easier competition) or (financially) is it best to stick as is with the Yankees & Red Sox and perpetual 3rd/4th place finishes.

We will need a few charts here to summarize the raw data (973 home games, 23,470,473 in attendance, 24,122 on average).

Within 2 games of 1st place (ie: serious contention)

Month	Games	Attendance	Avg
April	62	1,399,162	22,567
May	31	715,875	23,093
June	19	439,409	23,127
July	9	217,726	24,192
August	0		--
September	0		--

Within 5 games of 1st place (ie: in eyeshot)

Month	Games	Attendance	Avg
April	108	2,334,462	21,615
May	100	2,209,613	22,096
June	55	1,294,779	23,541
July	27	672,487	24,907
August	4	100,090	25,023
September	3	72,610	24,203

Spot in standings	Games	Attendance	Avg
1	59	1,467,235	24,868
2	60	1,463,394	24,390
3	416	10,323,987	24,817
4	356	8,176,192	22,967
5	82	2,039,665	24,874

Opponent	Games	Attendance	Avg
ARI	3	67,374	22,458
ATL	6	140,548	23,425
BAL	109	2,337,413	21,444
BOS	108	2,955,805	27,369
CHC	6	192,995	32,166
CHW	48	1,070,658	22,305
CIN	6	139,808	23,301
CLE	43	957,625	22,270
COL	6	155,419	25,903
DET	45	1,028,910	22,865
FLA	6	119,115	19,853
HOU	3	56,459	18,820
KCR	44	960,859	21,838
LAA	53	1,105,671	20,862
LAD	6	123,210	20,535
MIL	3	73,359	24,453
MIN	43	996,713	23,179
MON	15	388,404	25,894
NYM	6	170,012	28,335
NYY	106	3,446,348	32,513
OAK	52	1,189,224	22,870
PHI	15	468,490	31,233
PIT	6	108,797	*18,133*
SEA	56	1,298,712	23,191
SFG	6	120,179	20,030
STL	6	123,774	20,629
TBR	108	2,402,031	22,241
TEX	50	1,070,389	21,408
WSN	9	202,172	22,464

Division	Games	Attendance	Avg
AL East	431	11,141,597	25,851
AL Central	223	5,014,765	22,488
AL West	211	4,663,996	22,104
NL East	57	1,488,741	26,118
NL Central	30	695,192	23,173
NL West	21	466,182	22,199

Day of Week	Games	Attendance	Avg
Sunday	157	4,347,622	27,692
Monday	88	1,980,301	22,503
Tuesday	145	3,274,809	22,585
Wednesday	152	3,280,565	21,583
Thursday	118	2,602,879	22,058
Friday	157	3,664,947	23,344
Saturday	156	4,319,350	27,688

Overall per Month

Month	Games	Attendance	Avg
April	124	2,615,354	21,092
May	176	3,752,865	21,323
June	159	3,730,852	23,464
July	145	3,807,769	26,260
August	158	4,333,320	27,426
September	170	4,071,613	23,951

A few surprises there. The Jays do the best for attendance when they are in LAST PLACE (!) with 6 more fans per game than when they are in first. Boy does that put the 'win and they will come' down the list a lot. Now, part of that is due to them being in first mainly in April, sometimes in May, and every few years in June/July which is the time frame the crowds start to show up and last place becomes a sad possibility while August never sees the Jays in 1st and that is the biggest crowd time.

Days of the week are about what one would expect, with weekends peaking and Wednesday being the hardest day to draw the fans.

But teams they play against? Wooboy do we see an effect. Yankees are easily the biggest draw at 32,513 while the Angels are the worst at 20,862 (Pirates and a few other NL'ers are lower but with sub-10 games it is hard to put much weight on it). The divisional story clearly shows the east is where it is at for the Jays. Either the NL or AL East are the only places Rogers will want to be. However, the NL East figures are biased due to the games against the Phillies (the Jays designated rival) and to a lesser degree the Expos (who no longer exist). Basically the NL East would be like the AL East in the end though - 2 teams that draw fans (Mets & Phillies) and 3 who draw flies (Washington, Atlanta, and Florida). I guess Rogers would like a super-division with Boston, NYY, NYM, and the Phillies - playoffs would be next to impossible but good crowds would be here for most games.

Clearly for attendance purposes there are 3 things that matter - summer games, weekend games and the Yankees. Everything else is secondary. However, I still suspect that a team that is winning in September would up that attendance significantly. Lets hope the Jays create the opportunity to either prove me right or wrong.

Posted by John Northey on Friday, February 24 2012 @ 12:39 AM EST.

Attendance Since 2000 | 75 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Richard S.S. - Friday, February 24 2012 @ 09:31 AM EST (#252186) #

Thank You John. This is a little bit like being in the Twilight Zone. 1994 killed Montreal, and it eliminated any chance of a Three-Peat, which I think was happening in the final 2 weeks before the Strike. I could never be sure if the attendance in the last 10 years was due to the popularity of the Team or the popularity of the discounted tickets and free-be loaded packages. At least since Paul Beeston became President the nonsense of that ilk stopped. 2009, 2010, 2011 and after should give us a truer picture of the New Blue Jays. An increase of just 2500 fans per game would bring the yearly attendance over 2,000,000. That would be a clearer indication as to whether A.A. is doing everything right. April is a favorable month for stockpiling wins, building excitement and attendance. Get your tickets early, if everyone stay basically healthy, you won't want to miss the road to the post season, that should start in April.

hypobole - Friday, February 24 2012 @ 09:34 AM EST (#252187) #

It's going to take some time to win over sports fans who've been equating the Jays with cheapness and mediocrity. But Alex is building a winner and when he builds it, they will come. However even then, we may crack the top 10 in attendance at best.

Because, to use a mixed metaphor, those halcyon days of league leading attendance occurred during a perfect storm. The Leafs under Ballard stunk, no Raptors, the heyday of corporate ticket buying and then the opening of the amazing Skydome. The Jays were perennial contenders helped by a down period in both Boston and New York.

The past twenty years has lost an entire generation of fans, there are 3 major sports here now, corporate purse strings have tightened and the Rogers Centre is like a mausoleum on acid.

Finally, IIRC many years ago the Jays had a choice and they chose the AL East, thinking of the extra revenue from games vs the Yankees and Red Sox.

John Northey - Friday, February 24 2012 @ 09:53 AM EST (#252188) #

Well, checking the attendance numbers one can see why the Jays decided to stay in the AL East. I suspect TV viewership would be the same story.

Now, as to the days of Ballard...
http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/TOR/
Currently in their 7th straight year of not making the playoffs (Leafs in 9th place right now). Previous record streak was 3 years in the 1920's. Think about that - even in the Ballard years they never missed more than 2 years in a row (yes, it was a heck of a lot easier to make but still). The Leafs in 92/93 and 93/94 were an amazing team with Gilmour, Clark, Felix Potvin and others who were household names at the time. The Argos won the Grey Cup in 1991 and had the Rocket Ismail story going on.

Back in the early 90's there was TONS of competition for the sporting dollar and the Jays still sold out every last game for 2+ years.

Now the Leafs are really, really bad (record streak of missing the playoffs). The Raptors are worse. Argos missed the playoffs this past year. Basically if you want a winner you need to go to the Rock.

If the Jays make the playoffs the fans should come out in droves as sports fans are starved for anything right now (thus the Rock selling out every so often).

BlueJayWay - Friday, February 24 2012 @ 10:33 AM EST (#252189) #

Interesting topic. The small delta between April attendance (when the team might still be in contention) and later in the year, when they're not, can be explained by the fact that April is too early for people to really get into baseball, and with a team no one expects to contend anyway, they don't bother to come out. Later in the year the weather is nice and people are thinking baseball, but by then the Jays are becoming irrelevant in the standings.

I talked about this in a recent thread so I'll just copy and paste here:

In my view there are two scenarios where you'll really see attendance increases:

-being in a playoff race in August/September (and as you note, come those months the Jays are just playing out the string year after year),

-or a team that people really believe has a shot right from the beginning of the year. At this point, that would probably take being in a playoff race/being in the actual playoffs the previous season or two, and a team everyone expects to contend that year. Then you'll see a good attendance bump right from April, I suspect.

The problem is year after year the Jays go into the season without any kind of realistic hope of playoffs, so the attendance is just not there. There's just a general expectation that they have no chance. Being within a few games of first in May or something just won't be enough to really get the fans out.

bpoz - Friday, February 24 2012 @ 11:27 AM EST (#252192) #

Great work John N.

I take it we had some good crowds at the EX after we started to get good.
In theory the SP may play a role. Halladay, Steib, and the Guzman/Hentgen/Clemons trio. You can promote a star SP. The media knows 2-3 days in advance who will be starting, so use the Fan to promote Romero for example. That may influence the walk on crowd.

I don't know if this info is available, but season ticket holders is a fixed number, the over is variable. Of course not everyone shows up who has a ticket.

TimberLee - Friday, February 24 2012 @ 11:53 AM EST (#252194) #

Thanks for this - interesting. (I don't know what "The Rock" refers to but it's not bothering me.)

James W - Friday, February 24 2012 @ 01:21 PM EST (#252203) #

They are Toronto's National Lacrosse League franchise.

John Northey - Friday, February 24 2012 @ 03:46 PM EST (#252210) #

As James said, but the Rock also have sold out the ACC quite a few times (especially in the playoffs). I'm not a fan, but can certainly see why anyone in Toronto who loves sports in general would be showing up.

As to the 80's...

Bottom: 1981: 14,247 per game (horrid year)

Climb: 1983: 23,832 per game (first year they looked good, in lead near ASG before pen collapsed)

Peaking: 1985: 30,862 per game, team wins 99

Pre-Dome Peak: 1987: 34,302 per game, team loses division in super-painful way (about 5k fans per game cannot see full field or are so far away need a telescope to see home plate)

1989: Move into dome, crack 40k per game - just shy of 48k per the next year, 49k per the next 2, 50k in 93, 49k in 94, then ... 39 in 95, 31 in 96/97, 30k in 98 (last year with hope at the start), haven't hit 30k since.

Flex - Friday, February 24 2012 @ 05:42 PM EST (#252212) #

Those numbers per year are far more indicative of attendance behavior in this city than the month-by-month or games-behind breakdown above. It's all about momentum. The very fact that attendance was barely above 30,000 a game the year they won the most games and their first division, then above 34,000 a game the year they won fewer games and loss, says everything you need to know. And it's just underlined by the bell curve of attendance when they moved to the dome.

This is why the Jays will never spend big on free agents BEFORE they start winning. Because it takes time for the momentum to build. Even winning doesn't immediately fix the numbers, it's consistency, it's moving toward something that works.

ComebyDeanChance - Friday, February 24 2012 @ 10:35 PM EST (#252224) #

1994 killed Montreal, and it eliminated any chance of a Three-Peat, which I think was happening in the final 2 weeks before the Strike.

This is more wistful romanticism than fact. In 1994 the Expos fell below the NL average attendance for the 11th straight year. Sure, they may have had a brief bubble if they had succeeded in the playoffs, but I think the franchise was getting ready for the fork by 1994. What killed the Expos was that Montreal was never a very good baseball market - it was a satisfactory one for a few years in the early 80's - and the market worsened considerably with the head office and Anglo exodus from 1978 to the early 90's.

After 1994, the Expos' attendance hung on at about the same level as before 1994, and then cratered in 1998. The franchise went on life support and lasted until 2004 with essentially minor league attendance levels.

Putting a competitive team on the field will certainly drive up Blue Jay attendance and TV ratings, but it certainly won't recreate 1989 to 1993. The 90% of seasons ticket holders who've not renewed since then, who couldn't give away their tickets to clients; the box holders who had their boxes sit fallow most of the time; the long since cancelled travel packages that tour companies once ran for out of towers that generated group sales; the once extensive radio network; all that won't reappear. The truth of that period was that baseball and the Skydome were a novelty to many, and there is nothing bigger in the Toronto market than something people think other people are doing. That and hockey.

If the Blue Jays can re-introduce winning to the Toronto market, they may be able to get attendance up to the high 2's and increase TV ratings, which will allow for salary expansion. But there's a reason that Forbes rates Toronto as one of the least valuable markets in baseball despite its population. It's the same reason that 5 of the top 6 revenue teams in hockey are in Canada despite much larger populations in American cities. As market characteristics go, Toronto is not a great one for baseball. Attendance would certainly be higher if the team could market winning, but it's unrealistic to expect anything like the 1989-1993 period to reappear.

Richard S.S. - Saturday, February 25 2012 @ 12:19 AM EST (#252226) #

OK people, just look at April's schedule, out of 23 games, Toronto plays 3 each against Boston and Tampa Bay with 1 against Texas (teams Toronto needs to do well against). They also play 16 games against teams they shouldn't lose to, games they must win. If Toronto wins 15 in April, then they are contending with the postseason berths. A possible 15 wins in 23 games with 139 left to play.

bpoz - Saturday, February 25 2012 @ 09:32 AM EST (#252228) #

Flex, I remember something like that. After you win the general public seems to come out. Someone provided numbers to support this, I think Pittsburgh & KC.

Richard SS, We had fast starts in 2009 & 2010, probably not as good as 15-8. In 2009 that start got me very convinced, then they faded. So in 2010 when it happened again, I was cautious, and they faded again. A similar fast start in 2012...what ever happens after, I am going to go for it. I like the way the team is being developed so maybe I can regain some lost courage from 2009.

greenfrog - Saturday, February 25 2012 @ 10:34 AM EST (#252229) #

Starting strong would be nice but playing .650 ball against mainly mediocre teams over a 23-game stretch really doesn't mean all that much - it certainly doesn't mean that the Jays are a legit playoff contender. The soft early schedule also means that the team's last 139 games are going to be particularly tough. The baseball season is a marathon, not a sprint.

John Northey - Saturday, February 25 2012 @ 11:25 AM EST (#252230) #

Lets look softly at the Expos attendance...
1993: won 94 and came in 2nd just 3 games back but just 1.6 mil came to the games (13th of 14). Why did they get so few for such a good team?

Lost pre-1993: no major free agents (Gary Carter was the biggest name but he retired). Ivan Calderon was a salary dump (he was acquired for Raines a few years earlier before dumping starting) - turned out to be good as he had a 47 OPS+ in 93 and retired. Tim Wallach and Mark Gardner were also salary dumps pre-1993. Signing Vladimir Guerrero as an amateur was a great move but no one knew at the time. So to fans the 1993 team was in full dumping mode after coming in 2nd in 1992 (9 games back). In 1993 they didn't spend one day in first place and were 7 back in mid-May. 13 back by mid-June and still 10+ back on August 29th. On September 28th they were 6 games back and no real chance but won 5 of the final 6 to be within 3 after being further out than that since the end of April.

So, a surprisingly strong kick at the end with promise. How did the ownership react? Did they do a big marketing campaign? Did they go get the missing pieces so they could win in 1994? Uh, no.

Pre-1994...
Let Dennis Martinez leave as a free agent (ace of staff, fan favourite had 2 more very good years left).
Traded starting 2B Delino DeShields for a reliever (Pedro Martinez but no fans knew how good that was at the time)
Chris Nabholz was dumped (solid-mid rotation guy)
Signed, then SOLD Matt Stairs to the Red Sox (yes, sold him)
Sold John Vander Wal (backup outfielder) and Charlie Montoyo as well.

So if you were a fan pre-1994 what would you expect? 2 keys for the rotation dumped, the starting 2B dumped (it seemed) and 3 players sold for cash only. It didn't look good. Plus on April 21st the team was in 5th place. On July 8th they finally moved into 1st place while in San Diego. What happened?

They came home on a Thursday - there was 36k fans in attendance (more than Tampas park can hold). The Expos proceeded to lose 4 straight and fall into 2nd. Monday the 18th the fans responded with just 18k but that started a winning streak of 8 games. Back into 1st on July 20th, then from the 22nd on the crowds were 32k, 35, 34k, 30k, 37k, 30k, and 39k for the final game pre-strike. So once the fans had faith in the team they saw 30k per game for 7 straight games despite the looming strike (I was at one of those). That streak was in eyeshot of 5th in the league (top 1/2) and could've grown had fans believed the ownership cared at all.

The owners though? They didn't care.

Free agent Larry Walker walked.
Traded closer John Wetteland, ace Ken Hill, CF All-Star Marquis Grissom and fell to last place. Despite that they came in 10th of 14 for attendance.

It was a sad mess. You had a team that finally was getting fans that was a winner and the ownership kept dumping everyone every chance it had. The fans did come when the team proved it could win. They quit years after the owners did.

Richard S.S. - Saturday, February 25 2012 @ 12:32 PM EST (#252231) #

...'splain this to me Lucy... In which individual month do you want the Team to win 95 Games.

If the Team can`t dominate the ``sub-.500`` teams, they`ll never contend. In April win 15 of 23 games to start the Season, then an additional 80 wins in the remaining 139 games.

In May, Toronto plays Texas (5), LAA (4), Tampa Bay (5), NYY (2), with 12 Games verses ``sub-.500`` teams. 15 wins should be easy, but 18 wins are expected.

In June, Toronto plays Boston (6), Philadelphia (3), LAA (3), Milwaukee (3), Miami (3), with 9 games verses ``.500-ish`` teams. 15 games should be easy, but 17 wins are expected.

That indicates a possible 45-33 to 50- 28 record at the end of June, in first place by how much? I believe this year`s team is that much better than any of its` 2009, 2010, 2011 attempts. I want A.A. to be a definite Buyer, not a seller. Now to watch it happen.

greenfrog - Saturday, February 25 2012 @ 12:45 PM EST (#252234) #

The proverb "don't count your chickens" comes to mind.

johnny was - Saturday, February 25 2012 @ 03:56 PM EST (#252245) #

That indicates a possible 45-33 to 50- 28 record at the end of June, in first place by how much?

Since the Rays got good, this is how things have shaped up atop the AL East at the end of June...

30/6/2011: the Yankees were in first at 47-31, with the Bosox (45-34) and Rays (45-36) nipping close behind.

30/6/2010: Yankees 47-30, Bosox 47-32, Rays 45-32.

30/6/2009: Bosox 47-30, Yankees 44-32, Rays 44-35.

30/6/2008: Rays 50-32, Bosox 50-35, Yankees 44-39.

To the end of June 2012, the Jays have 19 games against the beasts of the AL East, 13 against the Rangers and Angels, then 12 with the Braves, Phillies, and Marlins (9 of which are in NL parks, where the Jays have played terribly in recent years). It would be quite a shock for the 2012 Jays to be at 45 wins at the end of June next year--which they've never done during the previous 4 years, including the 85 win 2010--and 50 is completely inconceivable.

lexomatic - Saturday, February 25 2012 @ 07:51 PM EST (#252257) #

What killed the Expos was that Montreal was never a very good baseball market - it was a satisfactory one for a few years in the early 80's - and the market worsened considerably with the head office and Anglo exodus from 1978 to the early 90's.

This is contrary to everything I've heard/read. I only lived there in 1985/86, but I clearly recall that people talked about what a good baseball market Montreal was.

Richard S.S. - Saturday, February 25 2012 @ 09:28 PM EST (#252259) #

Tell me, is the Bullpen better this year or not? I believe so, 6 games at a minimum, with a possible 10 games better. Now look at Tampa's Bullpen in the worst to first year and tell me how they compare. I think this Bullpen is better. Then talk about the Starting Rotation:

Romero (1st round pick) should be Romero, always getting better.

Morrow (1st round pick) figured something out late last year and might just be better than Romero if it's the right stuff.

Cecil (1st round pick) learned what taking things for granted meant, motivated to a big improvement - like 2010, or better?

Alvarez (16 year-old, highly touted free agent, now just 21) can pitch here, how well should be interesting.

McGowan (1st round pick) looks healthy, happy and effort-free and might surprise greatly.

Drabek (1st round pick) learned how to listen, then learned how to accept help, but did it help?

Now compare that same Tampa's Staff from then with this one now. I think this Rotation's better. Someone else can compare the offense.

johnny was - Saturday, February 25 2012 @ 10:14 PM EST (#252260) #

One of the major contributors to Tampa's worst to first was replacing IF pylons like Brendan Harris and Ty Wigginton with Jason Bartlett and Evan Longoria, which had a pretty dramatic effect on runs prevented. Better D makes the pitchers all look better and the Jays are trotting out the same crew this year as 2011, so I just don't see that sort of dramatic jump based on the bullpen.

Flex - Saturday, February 25 2012 @ 10:48 PM EST (#252262) #

Except that the third baseman, the second baseman and the centre fielder only played a fraction of the games last year as part of "that crew" so it's not fair to lump them with the rest.

TamRa - Sunday, February 26 2012 @ 04:58 AM EST (#252265) #

I hesitate to too-enthusiastically echo Richard, but I can indeed see 45 wins by July 1, but i see that as a ceiling - an indication that everything is going well and people are playing to their abilities in the great majority of cases and no major injuries. I would be pretty stunned (and I'm known for my optimism) at anything more than that.

And my gut feeling before really sussing it out was that they would get better as they went along. I could see a hot streak starting on July 2 and running into the break which gives them confidence and momentum after the break to step up their game a bit more. So I wouldn't be all that down about 2-4 fewer wins. But the schedule does get way harder starting August 7

Here's how I got to 45:

2 of 3 at Cleveland
2 of 3 v. Boston
2 of 3 at Baltimore
2 of 3 v. Tampa
2 of 4 at KC
2 of 3 at Baltimore
3 of 3 v. Seattle
last game in April v. Texas, a loss

April = 15-8

two games v. Texas, split 1-1
2 of 4 at LA
2 of 2 at Oakland
3 of 4 at Minnesota
1 of 2 v. TB
1 of 2 v. NY
2 of 3 v. Mets
1 of 3 at TB
1 of 3 at Texas
3 of 3 v. Baltimore

May = 17-11

2 of 3 v. Boston
2 of 3 at White Sox
1 of 3 at Alanta
1 of 3 v. Washington
1 of 3 v. Philly
2 of 3 at Milwaukee
1 of 3 at Florida
1 of 3 at Boston
2 of 3 v. LA

June = 13-14 (the annual June swoon tied directly to the troubles versus the NL)

total on the morning of July 1 = 45-33

As I said, that's a year without serious setback (other than inter-league play) but it's not crazy. It's also a pace for 99 wins so they could still afford a rough patch in the second half (22 of 32 games starting August 7 are against TB, NY, Tex, Det, and Boston... going .500 would be a good result)

I've staked myself to a prediction of 89 wins tonight (this morning!) with the usual +/-3 caveat.

I think it's doable.

but no one ever really knows 'til they play 'em

bpoz - Sunday, February 26 2012 @ 10:17 AM EST (#252266) #

I like the talent level of this team. Better OF & 3B defense should happen. There is a good chance that the rotation & pen will also be better.

I hope for high 80s in wins because this will give me confidence in the manager. I gave him a bye in year 1. He was probably fine (maybe great) for a rookie managing a team that evolved so much. Catcher, 1B, 2B, 3B & all 3 OF positions changed, that is a lot of change. Maybe he needs a 2nd bye because those positions are still very inexperienced.

johnny was - Sunday, February 26 2012 @ 10:37 AM EST (#252268) #

Tamra: that scenario entails something like a .560 winning percentage on the road. What a majestic season it would be if things actually broke like that.

greenfrog - Sunday, February 26 2012 @ 02:03 PM EST (#252270) #

ComebyDeanChance - Sunday, February 26 2012 @ 03:24 PM EST (#252271) #

The owners though? They didn't care.

I think that's somewhat unfair. During that period the owners were Charles Bronfman, and later the Brochu group. Bronfman, like the O"Malley's in Los Angeles, thought the escalation of baseball salaries from the 70's to the 90's was insane. I thought he was a good owner and dedicated to the success of the team. The fact that he didn't see the Montreal marketplace, with limited attendance and broadcast revenues, as compatible with the ongoing economic reality in baseball (the average salary increased over 50% in the single year before he sold) doesn't make him someone who didn't care.

Brochu and co. simply didn't have the resources to pour money into the Expos that wasn't coming back in revenue. Was about that simple. I never garnered the impression that Brochu didn't care, just that the group didn't have independent resources beyond that earned in revenue to spend.

The players they didn't retain were ones they didn't believe they could afford on their revenue base. We've never had that problem in Toronto, where arbitration-eligible players automatically become unaffordable. The greater problem now seems to be getting players to take Toronto's money.

Richard S.S. - Sunday, February 26 2012 @ 04:31 PM EST (#252274) #

The Elephant in the room is the N.L., where the Blue Jays forget to play Baseball. That should change this year. Bautista is not a stranger to N.L. pitching. Rasmus and Johnson are NL-bred and should do well. Escobar's time in the N.L. is recent and not forgotten. Lawrie, Arencibia and Thames are too young to have learned bad habits. I think we'll squeek out a few more inter-league games.

greenfrog - Sunday, February 26 2012 @ 04:53 PM EST (#252275) #

It's easy to suddenly develop a few bad habits (or "forget" a few good ones) when you're facing Doc, Lee or Hamels...

BlueJayWay - Sunday, February 26 2012 @ 05:52 PM EST (#252276) #

That should change this year.

And we say that every year.

I just mark the Jays down for 7-11 in interleague, and continue on with my projections. I've given up trying to make sense of it. It's like quantum mechanics, it makes no flippin sense, it just is, accept, deal with it, move on.

Seamus - Sunday, February 26 2012 @ 05:52 PM EST (#252277) #

"A few surprises there. The Jays do the best for attendance when they are in LAST PLACE (!) with 6 more fans per game than when they are in first. Boy does that put the 'win and they will come' down the list a lot"

As others have said, I think year to year trends say a lot more. I mean, looking at whether the Jays were a couple games out of a playoff spot in April or May is basically meaningless if fans don't believe there's a chance for postseason play. Who really looks at the standings that early in the year? Meaningful games in late August and September would produce that (of which there have been none in your chart, sadly. Been a long time).

In my opinion, what has hurt Toronto attendance is the total lack of hope for a playoff spot. I mean, the team hasn't even been in a race since 1993. Nobody is saying the Jays will get back to 50K a game, but there's no reason to think the team won't receive good support after some consistent winning.

"As market characteristics go, Toronto is not a great one for baseball."

With respect - what do you base that on? I assume you say that because Toronto has been in the bottom third of attendance the last 15 years or so. In your opinion then, which MLB markets would draw better than the Jays after 18 years without a playoff race? Not just playoffs, but a playoff race. The last time the Yankees were bad in the early 1990s, they were averaging low 20,000s. The Phillies were at the bottom of attendance 10 years ago when they were bad. Virtually all teams have drawn poorly when out of the playoff picture for a while. Texas, Seattle, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Minnesota, Cincinnati, San Diego...the list goes on and on.

I'm thinking realisitically, the Cubs, Red Sox, Cards and Yankees would draw better crowds than Toronto if they were in the same situation. All phenomenal markets for baseball. But I really see nothing to indicate any other teams would draw much better. Look at attendance over the years. Generally - if you're in a playoff race, you draw well, if you don't take a run at the playoffs for long enough, you draw poorly (barring a bump from a new stadium). The Jays have just been in that situation for an incredibly long time.

Perhaps the best comparison is Baltimore. Like the Jays, stuck in the AL East, they've had no hope of playoffs since the 90s. And what kind of crowds do they average? Low 20ks, just like Toronto. Would you say Baltimore is a 'bad baseball market'? I wouldn't. I doubt many would. But their circumstances have lead to poor attendance.

The last time the Jays were in the playoffs they broke attendance records. Nobody is saying they'll do that again, but you can't ignore the link between playoff races/appearances and attendance when evaluating cities as baseball markets. If Toronto makes the playoffs 3 out of the next 6 years and caps out at 25K a game - then I think calling this a weak baseball market is fair game. But if attendance and interest rises quite a bit (as I suspect it would) I fail to see what qualifies it as a bad market. It's just not a phenomenal market (like Boston, Chicago or Toronto for hockey).

BlueJayWay - Sunday, February 26 2012 @ 07:33 PM EST (#252283) #

Exactly ^^^^^^^^^^

This is simply what happens when you have a team that no one can pin any hopes on.

John Northey - Sunday, February 26 2012 @ 10:46 PM EST (#252286) #

I think a good point out of the lack of a boost for shifting into 1st is the fact no one believes anymore. Much like happened with the Expos in 1994 - no one bought it until mid-season but once they buy in they really bought in (30k+ per game). I suspect the Expos would've seen 40k per game in September 1994 had the season continued and the team stayed in first. They wanted a winner and that team would've been it. Sadly, even then the owners probably would've wrote it off ala the late 90's Marlins.

As to the Expos post-Bronfman owners (he sold to them in 1990) they were known to not believe in investing in the team - they insisted on a fire sale post-1994. MLB shared revenues were in the $30 mil+ a year range back then and the team payroll didn't crack $20 million until 2000. In 2000 Loria took over and jumped the payroll to the $30 mil range while begging the city/province to build him a new park. At the end of 2001 (once the city & province said 'non' to a new park) Loria sold to MLB while taking over the Marlins. Fans were basically told 'screw you' at this point by 3 sets of owners. The new GM went nuts and traded anyone of any value in the minors for short term fixes to try to pull off a miracle but no one really believed in it and the team started to not call up guys in September to save a bit of cash. Ugly ugly ugly.

TamRa - Sunday, February 26 2012 @ 11:22 PM EST (#252287) #

So, from April though June, the Jays are going to:

- Win 14 series (including three sweeps)
- Split four series
- Never get swept
- Lose 8 series (all three-game series with 1-2 outcomes)

Optimism abounds.

-------------------------------
Optimism abounds, indeed! That's the idea.

Of course, most of their hardest series are in the second half so that "sweep three/never get sweep" think will surely change - you have to look at WHO is getting swept in those three.

It's all in the context of who the opponent is.

All that said - yes, I make no apology for Optimism - as I've explained before, if I ever get to the place where I look ahead to the coming season and see nothing but failure and stuff to complain about, I'll go do something else.

I try to stay within the realm of the possible, but i'm NEVER going to say "I'm expecting failure"...that's just not how I do fandom.

TamRa - Sunday, February 26 2012 @ 11:37 PM EST (#252288) #

"Tamra: that scenario entails something like a .560 winning percentage on the road. What a majestic season it would be if things actually broke like that."

That was just the first half.

(actually it's .545 if I figured it right)

Let me sort them by good and bad teams:

2 of 3 at Baltimore
2 of 4 at KC
2 of 3 at Baltimore
2 of 2 at Oakland
3 of 4 at Minnesota
2 of 3 at White Sox

2 of 4 at LA
1 of 3 at TB
1 of 3 at Texas
1 of 3 at Atlanta
2 of 3 at Milwaukee
1 of 3 at Florida
1 of 3 at Boston

giving Florida the benefit of the doubt, here. I'm not sure how good Milwaukee will end up being, and they could definitely lose that series on the road against an NL opponent. I find it very hard to assume a sweep against anyone, even though I know it's bound to happen - Certainly Tampa or Boston is capeable.

As for the bad teams, yes I assume dominance - that's what good teams do. If they don't do that then this discussion is useless.

during the second half here's the road schedule, sorted boog and bad (IMO):

3 at NY
3 at Boston
3 at TB
3 at Detroit
3 at NY
3 at Boston
3 at NY
3 at TB

3 at Seattle
4 at Oakland
3 at Baltimore
3 at Baltimore

Neither the "winning record on the road" or the "never get swept" is going to survive that.

Thomas - Monday, February 27 2012 @ 08:48 AM EST (#252294) #

As for the bad teams, yes I assume dominance - that's what good teams do.

Last year, over the entire season, Tampa played .500 ball against the Orioles and White Sox. They were 2-5 against the Athletics. The Tigers were below .500 against the Dodgers, Pirates, Mets, Mariners and Giants. Texas was below .500 against the Jays, Mets, Marlins and Twins. The Red Sox were below .500 against the Indians, White Sox, Pirates and Padres. And so on and so on.

The idea that the Jays will play above .500 ball on the road against every team except those who made the playoffs or missed it on the last day of the season is unrealistic.

greenfrog - Monday, February 27 2012 @ 09:05 AM EST (#252295) #

"I try to stay within the realm of the possible"

I have no issue with this - I'm optimistic about the Jays too, both short- and long-term. I think you run aground when you conflate the possible and the probable, blurring the former into the latter. But hey - it's spring! Let's play ball.

bpoz - Monday, February 27 2012 @ 11:15 AM EST (#252297) #

The best hot start I can remember is the Tigers in the early 80s. I think 1984. They must have done everything but have a losing streak. I am guessing that they did not lose any series and also swept some teams that ended up being good that year. Good being 90 wins for my judgement.

Also recently maybe within 5 years, I think a NL West team, guessing Colorado, had a hot streak going. This was later in the year. Again I cannot be sure but they almost never lost. They must have beaten some good teams, 90+ wins.

Getting back to the Jays, the schedule is harder at the end of the year. That is all I know.
Will we go 15-8 to start, maybe, but I find that the Jays are a better 2nd half team so I expect them to do well then. Maybe not 15-8 but 14-9 or 13-10 would be a safe range for me to expect.

John Northey - Monday, February 27 2012 @ 12:38 PM EST (#252299) #

Tigers in 1984 started 35-5 (9-0 at first, lost one, won 7, lost 1, won 3, lost 2, won 7, lost 1, won 9 - 8 1/2 games ahead of all comers as of May 24th). This was the 2nd straight year the Jays won 89 but this time came in 2nd. The Jays did pull within 3 1/2 on June 6th but by June 26th it was back to 10 games out, finishing 15 out.

John Northey - Monday, February 27 2012 @ 02:41 PM EST (#252303) #

Looking at the old standings made me think this year could work out like 1983...
Jays win 89 and come in 4th
Teams ahead of the Jays in 1983...
Baltimore 98 wins
Detroit 92 wins
Yankees 91 wins
---Jays 89---
Brewers 87 wins

Geez, now that was a tough division. Just one playoff slot too. The west was won by the White Sox with 99 wins but no one else in that division won 80.

2012 could see the Jays, Yankees, Red Sox, and Rays all win 89+ and few would be shocked. The AL Central could see just the Tigers crack 500 and none would be shocked. The AL West though could be a real battle between LAA and the Rangers both shooting over 100 wins with the advantage of Oakland & Seattle being in that division. Thus if just one wild card in 2012 I'd say the Jays are in deep trouble, but with 2 they 'just' have to beat two of the Sox/Yankees/Rays. Next year could be more extreme for the Angels & Rangers as they get Houston joining in on the fun (assuming unbalanced schedule of course which seems to be what it will continue to be).

Are we sure the Jays can't shift to the AL Central?

TamRa - Monday, February 27 2012 @ 03:02 PM EST (#252304) #

"The idea that the Jays will play above .500 ball on the road against every team except those who made the playoffs or missed it on the last day of the season is unrealistic."

Conceded.

BUT how does one PREDICT which good team they will outplay (hasn't it been Boston once or twice lately) and which sucky team they will inexplicably lose to anyway?

Likely there will be some of both but there's no rational way to predict who's who, so when you look at the schedule you naturally assume better results against the teams you are apparently better than and worse results against the teams that are as good as or better than the Jays.

It's that pretty rational?

Looking back at the original list - let's say KC and the Mets are the surprise team they struggle with...losing 3 of 4 at KC and getting swept at home by the Mets.

That could absolutely happen.

What then? 3 less wins that I projected

But it's just as possible that the Jays are the thorn in the side of, say, Texas. Instead of going 2-4 against Texas, they go 4-2

Net difference? One game.

But LOGICALLY you don't look at Texas as the place you will succeed and the Mets as the place you will struggle.

it's like a comment made on my blog - I projected what I thought was reasonably possible for each player on the team (except the bench) and one person commented that if all that happened, the team would win 100 games - which is true probably.

But they were INDIVIDUAL guesses and SOME of them WILL be wrong. Mostly too high but a couple might be too low.

You can't really total the individual guesses and say "this is what the team is likely to do" because SOME of them will fall short, you just can't know for sure WHICH.

It's a mugs game (more so than predictions usually are) to say "I expect Rasmus to succeed and Johnson to fail" or vice versa.

Likewise, I am absolutely sure that the Jays WILL be maddeningly unsuccessful against some one or more teams they should manhandle, and surprisingly effective against a team they ought to struggle against. but I have no clue which. All I can do is look at the aggregate results ad the only logical way I know of to do that is to say "I think they can beat the Royals and I'm worried about the Rangers"

Chuck - Monday, February 27 2012 @ 03:09 PM EST (#252305) #

It's a mugs game

Attempting to forecast 3 games at a time certainly is. Better, I think, to forecast the aggregated runs scored and runs allowed, and then ask Pythagoras to convert that to a winning percentage. Anything more micro than that smacks more of wishcasting than forecasting.

bpoz - Monday, February 27 2012 @ 07:00 PM EST (#252311) #

For lack of better wording, let me say that there is "baseball wisdom".

So if we score 11 runs & win 11-3, I have heard it said that we used up all our runs and runs will be hard to get in the next game. There are probably many examples where this is true for some to swear by it.
I will be happy with 4 winning streaks and 1 losing streak. The streaks being a 5 game differential say 6-1.

Of course I am a fan so I don't have to keep my emotions in check.

I don't know what to make of Farrell yet but he seems like a guy that could become really smart over the winter and wins 93 games.

Thomas - Monday, February 27 2012 @ 07:44 PM EST (#252312) #

Likewise, I am absolutely sure that the Jays WILL be maddeningly unsuccessful against some one or more teams they should manhandle, and surprisingly effective against a team they ought to struggle against. but I have no clue which. All I can do is look at the aggregate results ad the only logical way I know of to do that is to say "I think they can beat the Royals and I'm worried about the Rangers"

I understand your point here concerning why you expect things to even out. My larger point is that your predictions contain a series of unlikely premises. You have the Jays playing at least .500 ball on the road against every team but those that made the playoffs in 2011 and those who missed it on the last day of the season and the Marlins. But that's not all.

You also have the Jays only losing home series against the Nationals, Phillies and Rangers. You have Toronto winning home series against Boston twice, Tampa and the Angels. You have Toronto winning 8 of 9 against clear sub-.500 teams, losing 2 of 3 to the Nationals and winning 12 of 22 against teams that will be fighting for 90 wins.

In effect, Toronto is perfect at home against bad teams, wins every series on the road against bad teams, is around .500 at home against good teams and never gets swept on the road by good teams. That will not happen. Teams that make the playoffs don't achieve all four of those goals.

Maybe each of those four occurences seems likely to you. It sure doesn't to me. But, either way, as was said earlier, it's much more accurate to predict won-loss record from a total of runs scored and runs allowed than predicting each series individually before the season has even begun.

Richard S.S. - Monday, February 27 2012 @ 10:53 PM EST (#252314) #

After a 35 and 5 start to 1984, Detriot Tiger's Manager Sparky Anderson remarked, " All we have to do to clinch the Pennant is to finish .500 over the remaining games. Anything more is gravy."

Winning games becomes easier the more you win, winning streaks breed winning streaks. The ability to make the playoffs starts in April, May and June. If you can't win in these months, games won later won't matter. In 1992, Toronto starts (April) 16-7 and finishes 21-9; and in between goes 59-50 (with 14-16 in August). In 1993, Toronto goes 19-9 in June with 18-10 to finish, and 58-48 in the other months (with 12-14 in July).

Some of us look to the schedule to see if something like this is possible. Cleveland, Baltimore, Kansas City and Seattle are teams Toronto must beat and should sweep. Boston, Tampa Bay and Texas are teams Toronto must not have a losing record against and should have a winning record against. Our team no longer has spare parts and replacement players filling roster spots; mid to late season acquisitions now get to play a full year here, and the most necessary needs - the bullpen - has been heeded, and is better.

Toronto must play every game this season as if it's a Game 7. Boston replaces a usually healthy Papelbon with an oft-injured Bailey and still has Rotation questions. New York trades Montero for Pineda (who's not be as good as they think he might be) and signs Kuroda (Dodger's ballpark for New York's) and questions in the bullpen too.

TamRa - Tuesday, February 28 2012 @ 02:00 AM EST (#252320) #

" My larger point is that your predictions contain a series of unlikely premises."

do keep in mind though that it's only (just under) half the season - most of the things you go on to describe won't be true at the end of the season, even in my rosey projections.

---

"You have the Jays playing at least .500 ball on the road against every team but those that made the playoffs in 2011 and those who missed it on the last day of the season and the Marlins."

so far I'm not seeing a problem in the context of my previously describe process.

---

"But that's not all.

You also have the Jays only losing home series against the Nationals, Phillies and Rangers."

there are also two splits of 2-game series. Other than those there are only four other home series against what ought be considered contenders. so i have them winning 4 of 7 home 3 games sets against the good teams. This is extreme?

It only take ONE loss in those four sets to make it a sub-.500 subset.

---

"You have Toronto winning home series against Boston twice, Tampa and the Angels."

This is impossible?

---

"You have Toronto winning 8 of 9 against clear sub-.500 teams, losing 2 of 3 to the Nationals"

the Jays have a history of owning Baltimore - remember when they started out 12-0 against them in 2010? - and they are clearly one of the three worst teams in baseball on paper. One of the other series is against Seattle which is one of the other members of that club.

They probably WON'T sweep those three series - but I spoke of (reasonably) POSSIBLE - the word was "doable" - not slam dunks.

I still say we are majoring far too much on the individual samples in order to debate the aggregate. They might well lose 2 of 3 at home vs. Seattle, and just as easily sweep the nationals when they come to town - but which is more likely?

---

"and winning 12 of 22 against teams that will be fighting for 90 wins."

One win over .500 at home is an issue? I can take two items off your list simply by giving ONE win in Toronto to Boston.

---

"In effect, Toronto is perfect at home against bad teams, wins every series on the road against bad teams, is around .500 at home against good teams and never gets swept on the road by good teams. That will not happen."

Of course it won't happen - I already covered this.

let's flip it around in the simplest possible terms. Give one more win to the Red Sox in Toronto, give Oakland both games in Oakland, and have the Jays sweep Washington. Also, we'll give TB the sweep when the Jays visit.

that takes your above comment down to this:

"In effect, Toronto is perfect at home against bad teams, (and) is around .500 at home against good teams."

And they still win 43 games in that scenario. In a much less quibble-worthy projection. Are we really spending this much time debating a 2 game swing?

---

"Teams that make the playoffs don't achieve all four of those goals."

In half a season?

Last year after July 1 the TB Rays were:

*20-7 at home v. non-playoff teams - but if you take Boston and Toronto off the list as "not bad" teams, they went 10-3 vs "bad" teams.

*won 4 of 8 series on the road vs non-playoff teams. This would not meet your list. they were, however, 14-12 in those games.

*They went 10-7 at home vs. playoff teams, if you include Boston as a "good team" then that jumps to 14-9

*the were not swept on the road by a playoff team, and still not if you include Boston.

So the 91 win Rays just last year met three of your four conditions.

For comparison (counting the Red Sox as a "good team" in both cases and the Jays as a "bad team" just to simplify it:

At home v. Good teams:
Jays - 10-9
Rays - 10-7

Road v. good teams:
Jays - 4-6 (5-8 if you count Atlanta)
Rays - 4-9

Home v. bad teams:
Jays - 9-3
Rays - 16-5

road v bad teams:
Jays - 17-11
Rays - 14-12

So the only real disparity is in the last category where my imaginary Jays come out 2 games better.

this is the second time I have to ask - is 2 games really that big a discrepancy?

So I'll just give those 2 games at Oakland to the A's and there's virtually no difference between my projected first (almost) half this year and the Rays second (just over) half last year. They went .578 in 83 games and 43 wins would be .551 in 78 games. 45 wins would be .577

By the way, .551 works out to 89 wins over a full season.

A thousand words (or so it seems) to defend the proposition that the team looks to me like a roughly 89 win team who will likely fall 2-4 games short of making the playoffs and who have a noticeably easier schedule in the first half than in the second half.

the simple reality is that the strength of schedule DOES matter. this is the much easier first half you are reviewing and listing off the things that playoff teams don't do over a full season to critique it is starting from a faulty premise to begin with.

It's entirely possible that the Jays lose those 2 games in Oakland, it's also possible they sweep the Nationals in Toronto - or any number of other ways you can subtract one or two games here or add them elsewhere.

The original point I was making in the post (265) where I dared to go into detail was that winning 45 games by july 1 was "doable"

It is, in my not so humble opinion - HOW they do it was never the point, just how they COULD do it. they could do it in 75 other ways probably and all of them would require something a bit odd (like not getting swept at home or whatever) - the details were never the point.

Just the potential.

TamRa - Tuesday, February 28 2012 @ 02:04 AM EST (#252321) #

"Maybe each of those four occurences seems likely to you. It sure doesn't to me. But, either way, as was said earlier, it's much more accurate to predict won-loss record from a total of runs scored and runs allowed than predicting each series individually before the season has even begun."

Agreed. when you are speaking of the whole season.

I don't know how to make any assumptions about runs scored and allowed over a portion of a season (frankly, i'd be pretty shaky making that prediction on a whole season)

in one sense though, I'm kinda doing that because I base a big chunk of my projections based on a knee-jerk impression of how well we'd hit their pitchers vs how well they would hit ours.

when I think we sweep Seattle, for instance, it's not because i think the jays will pound Felix if he comes up in that series, but because I think their offense is astonishingly bad. Which, against good pitching (which I presumptuously think we have) doesn't end well for them.

TamRa - Tuesday, February 28 2012 @ 02:10 AM EST (#252322) #

It's a mugs game

Attempting to forecast 3 games at a time certainly is. Better, I think, to forecast the aggregated runs scored and runs allowed, and then ask Pythagoras to convert that to a winning percentage. Anything more micro than that smacks more of wishcasting than forecasting.
--------------

Maybe you guys are getting what I'm trying to say.

I am NOT trying to say that on April 30 I am predicting that the Jays will take a loss at home v. the Rangers.

That's more insanity than one finds in the Joker.

I'm giving an example of how events MIGHT play out in such a way that the team would reach July 1 with 45 wins. Demonstrating one REASONABLE POSSIBILITY among many.

an unreasonable possibility would be that they would fly out of the gates by winning their first 15 games - and even that is POSSIBLE just not a REASONABLE supposition.

But nononono I am NOT actually predicting the outcome of each individual series. I'm pretty unusual but I'm not THAT crazy.

greenfrog - Tuesday, February 28 2012 @ 08:53 AM EST (#252323) #

I think the problem with the series-by-series approach is that it allows each forecaster's bias to creep in - and we all have our biases. Any one of us can pick a number (35, 40, 45, 50 wins) based on our own personal optimism-o-meter (or pessimism-o-meter) and then lay out a possible scenario series by series to "explain" how it could reasonably happen.

The advantage to the Pythagorean or runs for/runs against methodology is that, statistically speaking, it looks at the bigger picture instead of focusing on (say) whether the M's will score more runs off Brett Cecil than the Jays will score off Felix Hernandez, and whether a series sweep is therefore more or less likely.

But I get that it's fun to go series by series (or month by month) and envision how the team *could* stay in contention during the first half. If nothing else, it's an interesting thought experiment during the lull before ST gets going.

John Northey - Tuesday, February 28 2012 @ 09:27 AM EST (#252324) #

Actually, in the 89-93 years (Cito years with 4 out of 5 in the playoffs pre-wildcard) the Jays did NOT play every game like it was game 7 of the world series. That is what drove the anti-Cito crowd nuts.

Baseball is a marathon, not a sprint. Last year Lind acted like it was a sprint and did amazing for a few months (over 1000 OPS by mid-June) then fell apart. Cito made his share of mistakes, but he had this part right - baseball requires 162 games to be played plus many more if you make the playoffs (up to 19 more). That means you need to figure out how to share playing time to avoid burn out.

For example - in 1992 the most games played was 158 by Carter and 156 by Winfield - both spent time at DH to help keep them fresh. White & Alomar were the only others over 140 games. For pitchers Morris was rode hard (34 starts 240 IP) but Key was the only other one over 181 IP. Ward was pushed too hard in the pen (79 games, 101 IP) but closer Henke had sub-60 IP.

In 1993 primary DH Molitor had 160 games, Olerud (who DH'd 20 times) had 158, Carter 155 (RF/LF) with Alomar & Sprague (both 25) also in the 150's. 2 guys cracked 200 IP but no one hit 225. Ward again had 71 games but just 71 IP (still blew out his arm though). Everyone got days off, few were rode hard (outside of Ward) and the team had lots of gas left for the playoffs.

Pushing guys too hard will cause breakdowns. Ward showed that back in the early 90's (luckily he lasted _just_ long enough) and others have shown it since with Lind being the most recent example. The Jays need to ensure all players get breaks (be it DH'ing or days off or a mix) and that no one is pushed further than he can handle. You can Billy Martin it for awhile (he was known for pushing super-hard) but eventually your team falls apart if you do that.

bpoz - Tuesday, February 28 2012 @ 09:51 AM EST (#252327) #

Excellent point John N about players not being pushed too hard.
I thought Marcum getting shut down for a few days in 2010 around the All Star break was a good idea. I expect some IP limits this year again.

Mike Green - Tuesday, February 28 2012 @ 11:52 AM EST (#252329) #

Lind wasn't exactly pushed too hard. He played 150 games at age 26 in 2010, most of them as a DH. He went on the DL for his back injury on May 8, 2011 and missed almost a month.

It is, however, a mistake to count on him to be an everyday first baseman in 2012.

John Northey - Tuesday, February 28 2012 @ 01:14 PM EST (#252331) #

And with Lind there is the issue. Before his injury last year he played 32 of 33 games.

Post injury up to June 18th (339/384/633 at end of play that day) he played every single game - not one day off, missing just 2 innings of a 14-1 loss vs Boston. Doing that with a guy just coming off the DL is asking for trouble. He didn't get another inning off pre-All-Star Break. In fact it was July 20th he finally got 1 inning off. July 31st was his first game day off post-injury after hitting 205/264/308 from June 19th to July 30th. A day later he got 2 innings off, then missed 1 defensive inning over the next 15 games. In September the manager _finally_ figured giving Lind some rest might be a good idea but it was a lost season and Lind didn't respond (probably too beat up physically).

Hopefully the Jays/Farrell learned from this. A guy misses time on the DL and has a bad back - then you give him a few days off here and there or at least a few innings off in blowouts. Lind Cal Ripken.

Mike Green - Tuesday, February 28 2012 @ 01:58 PM EST (#252332) #

I agree about post-injury care. However, playing 32 of the first 33 games for a first basemen ought not to be difficult.

John Northey - Tuesday, February 28 2012 @ 04:22 PM EST (#252344) #

While it seems easy to us to play 32 of 33 at 1B I suspect if there is a back injury there that it wouldn't be. At 1B you bend over a lot and, like at any position, you have to move around a lot as well. The bigger question is how much was Lind working out on the field at the time as well. Did he take tons of balls at 1B to keep building his fielding skills? Given his interviews I suspect he did - which is something the manager also has to watch out for.

Ask a player if he is OK to play and work out and he'll say 'yes' 99% of the time. It is just the way it works in the macho sports world. It is up to managers & trainers to notice when a guy isn't in good enough shape and to pull him aside and say 'take a break'.

TamRa - Tuesday, February 28 2012 @ 05:37 PM EST (#252346) #

the commentary I've heard, from Farrell et al and from reporters is that Lind put in a TON of extra work in fielding drills last spring that he won't have to do this year.

Richard S.S. - Tuesday, February 28 2012 @ 11:42 PM EST (#252359) #

On June 30, 2009 Blue Jays were 41-38. On June 30, 2010 Blue Jays were 40-39. On June 30, 2011 Blue Jays were 40-42.

To: bpoz; greenfrog; johnny was; BlueJayWay and Thomas, I give you this, in each of 2009, 2010, 2011 we had "spare parts" and "replacement players" occupying more than a few roster spots. This team is better, (if you don't believe that, why does it matter to you, how many games Toronto wins?), I think at least 5 games better, possibly 10.

At no time in 2009, 2010, 2011 did a Toronto GM think this Team was good enough to be a "buyer". I want this Team to be a "buyer".

The Bullpen is better than most this Team's had. The Outfield has gotten better and might be great, but is still better. The Infield is improved and If they can manage Adam Lind's back, better, could be really good. A.A. almost hand-picked the Bench, so it's improved. The Rotation is improved, and should the Pitching Staff believe that, it could be great. Winning the 50th game on June 30th could be easy and more is possible. After all, lesser Teams won 40 games, why can't this team win more.

electric carrot - Wednesday, February 29 2012 @ 12:10 AM EST (#252360) #

I agree that this team is likely 5 games better than last year and potentially 10. I would be surprised if it didn't win 86 and could see it at 91 if things break right. I would say IF they had just signed Darvish we'd be looking at a real likely playoff team. Without him:

Catcher: Better than 11
3rd base: Better than 11
SS: about the same 11
2b: Better than 11
1b: Likely better than 11
DH: Likely better than 11
LF: Likely better than 11
CF: Better than 11
RF: Little worse than 11

#1 Starter: Likely a little worse than 11
#2 Starter: Likely better than 11
#3 Starter: Likely better than 11
#4 Starter: Likely better than 11
#5 Starter: Likely better than 11

Closer: Better than 11
Bullpen: Better than 11
Bench: About the same

Thomas - Wednesday, February 29 2012 @ 01:30 AM EST (#252361) #

This team is better, (if you don't believe that, why does it matter to you, how many games Toronto wins?),

I do believe this team is better, as well. But, even if I didn't, it would matter to me anyhow for the same reason it matter to me how many games the team wins during any season. Because I'm a fan.

Mike Green - Wednesday, February 29 2012 @ 10:09 AM EST (#252366) #

All of that stuff about Lind might be right, but if it is, it speaks very poorly of the organization. When Overbay was here, Lind was given essentially no work at first base to prepare him for the day when he might have to take over. Once the job was his, he was worked so hard on his fielding drills (if the story is true) that one month into the season, he significantly hurt his back as a result.

I have a lot of respect for Butterfield, and my own inclination would be that the Lind's injury happened without any specific relation to the nature of his fielding drills. Not that I know.

bpoz - Wednesday, February 29 2012 @ 10:22 AM EST (#252367) #

Richard SS, I am a fan of the Jays, you may be a more passionate fan.

New Thought. That June 30th mark ranks the 2009, 2010 & 2011 teams based on their records. This made me play thinking games by comparing "stuff" for each team. Quite interesting & enjoyable since it is all history now.

A tidbit here and there. 2009 had Halladay but little else in the rotation & monster years from Lind & Hill. 2010...Bautista & the big 4 in the rotation. 2011 was 2 different teams IMO as KJ & Lawrie were added, the pen weakened, Rasmus injured.

With the best record 2009 fell to 75 wins & 2010 really improved,85 wins. 2011 IMO was team 1 up to July 31 and them became team 2. I cannot seem to get the record at July 31 easily to make evaluations.

I don't know what any of this analysis proves. For me, I believed 2011 would be better than 2010. Only Wells was a significant missing part, of the players.

John Northey - Wednesday, February 29 2012 @ 10:43 AM EST (#252368) #

Always informative to see the pat to guess the future...
Jays record at the end of June...
1983: 42-31 - first good year
1985: 46-28 - first playoff year
1987: 45-30 - possibly best team
1989: 37-41 - miracle comeback to make playoffs 7 games back
1991: 43-33 - forgotten playoff year
1992: 45-31 - first WS (up just 1 game at that point)
1993: 48-31 - 2nd WS

In 1989 they were 10 back on July 5th, tied for the lead on August 31st and would stay in the lead from then on. It only took 89 wins to get it that year, but what a comeback from 12-24 to start.

bpoz - Wednesday, February 29 2012 @ 11:07 AM EST (#252369) #

Richard SS my friend, I apologize for pulling your chain.

Pulling...I agree we were never good enough to be a buyer. But we are talking about AA. He had to be the Seller because Atlanta had to be the buyer, Escobar, Gose?. Rasmus had to be Seller because noway St Louis was...Right/Wrong?

Its ST, lets have fun.

bpoz - Wednesday, February 29 2012 @ 11:39 AM EST (#252371) #

John N, So the odd numbered years were good, now the even numbered years are the better ones.

John Northey - Wednesday, February 29 2012 @ 12:52 PM EST (#252373) #

bpoz - didn't notice that before.
1984: good, but slaughtered by the Tigers
1986: hangover from 1985
1988: Bell as DH to make room for Sil Campusano
1990: Bell's last year here
1992: WOOHOO
1994: I try to forget

One (extremely) good even numbered year and a lot of even numbers we all either forgot or wanted to forget.

All time...
Even years: 1351-1354
Odd years: 1404-1436

Remove 1977-1981 (expansion years)...
Even Years: 1225-1157 = 83 win average / 162
Odd Years: 1260-1151 = 85 win average / 162

Division Titles in Even Years: 1
Division Titles in Odd Years: 4

bpoz - Thursday, March 01 2012 @ 09:36 AM EST (#252394) #

You are good John N with the way you crunch out the evidence.

How should someone put these odd little trends into words. Coincidence ? Probably, just like the All Star winning streaks by leagues. If it is luck, well 92-93 was good, 85 not so good.

Richard S.S. - Thursday, March 01 2012 @ 04:41 PM EST (#252412) #

It's possible Toronto will start a new trend this year. Some will be sure Toronto will not be much better than last year.

In Toronto's entire existence, they mattered in 1985, 1989, 1991, 1992 and 1993 when they finished first. They mattered in 1983, their 1st year not under .500 (89-73). They mattered in 1984, finishing 2nd, 15 GBL (89-73). They mattered in 1987, 2nd, 2 GBL; 1990, 2nd, 2 GBL; 1988, 3rd, 2 GBL and 2000, 3rd, 4.5 GBL. They mattered in 1986 and 1988, breaking hearts. They mattered in 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982 because they were virgins and newborns in the hearts of their fans. They mattered in 1994 until the strike ripped the heart out of the fans.

They did not matter in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009.

They matter once again, starting in 2010, A.A's team.

John Northey - Thursday, March 01 2012 @ 05:06 PM EST (#252413) #

More luck than anything the odd/even thing. A big part in 1986 was the hangover effect, a great year followed by losing your manager then some very, very dumb decisions (most obvious is Fielder benched after 6 games for 10 days, plays 2 games then benched again for 10+ days, starts 2 more, PH in one, then minors - started a total of 20 games...another kid in Kelly Gruber was also used almost exclusively off the bench...the pen after Henke/Eichhorn was a mess...boy was Jimy Williams a poor hire).

1988 had the DH mess in spring which poisoned the year. Still just 2 back though...if only Gillick had figured out Clancy was past his expiry date and Stottlyemyre wasn't ready while David Wells was best suited for the rotation. Ah well.

1990 saw Mookie Wilson in CF everyday (well past his expiry date) as was Bell in LF (sub-100 OPS+) - signs of Cito's love of veterans. Like 88 just 2 games back in the end - a Ducey/Hill platoon in CF might have done the trick (Wilson had little range by then anyways).

bpoz - Thursday, March 01 2012 @ 05:48 PM EST (#252415) #

I suggest the topic, inspired by John N.

Topic:- We had a good run from 1985-93. Using our memories we have reconstructed the down turn after 1993.
If Mookie Wilson for example led us to the promised land, as a part but could not deliver the championship...then...what, when, who & how were added to deliver the championships.

Major trade...Carter & Alomar. We gave up more than chicken feed.
Minor trade for Devo but still I flipped at the loss of Junior Felix.
The farm produced a significant part in Guzman. Minor parts?

Those that want to speculate may even say that we still win if Delgado, Fielder Sr or McGriff were at the same stage in their careers as Olerud.

TamRa - Thursday, March 01 2012 @ 09:34 PM EST (#252423) #

I'm of the opinion that a series of bad decisions (buy someone, Gillick/Ash or the players or both...or SOMEBODY) gave up the long term endurance of the team for short term moves that didn't actually make enough difference to justify it.

In my favorite alternate universe, Cone was here into the late 90's, Key never left, Alomar never left, Olerud wasn't given away for a bum - and we managed to nail down that trade for Randy Johnson.

In my little fantasy world the Jays stayed in contention right through the 90's until age caught up with them.

gnor - Thursday, March 01 2012 @ 09:42 PM EST (#252424) #

If you look at season totals, fans will usually show up the year after a trip to the playoffs, and that's when most teams will bump the payroll. Texas is the prime example of this, going to the WS with a $65 million payroll in 2010, with a huge bump in attendance and payroll in 2011.

vw_fan17 - Friday, March 02 2012 @ 11:32 AM EST (#252437) #

Jumping in late here.

Very detailed stats there, John, but I think it's hard to draw conclusions on a "per team" basis. That is, Jays draw more against NYY vs. PIT. The one chart that I think really mattered was attendance on days of the week - my guess is that the Yankees, due to the unbalanced schedule, etc, get WAY more weekend series against the Jays than someone like PIT. I'm guessing that CHC and COL (both have very high attendance averages, IIRC), probably were scheduled to play here more on weekends, and teams like PIT, etc play mostly on weekdays.

As an average fan, IMHO, I'm more likely to go see PIT on a Saturday, than COL on a Wednesday....

(i.e. small sample size for teams not in the AL East)

Chuck - Friday, March 02 2012 @ 12:06 PM EST (#252439) #

my guess is that the Yankees, due to the unbalanced schedule, etc, get WAY more weekend series against the Jays than someone like PIT

Above and beyond day-of-week and opposition team serving as (non-mutually independent) attendance predictors, there is the muddling effect of out-of-towners. Series against Boston and NY may well draw more Blue Jays fans than usual, but they also draw a ton of Red Sox and Yankees fans from the US. The Americans will come if their teams are doing well and warrant viewing, regardless of how well the Jays are performing. So the Jays' success would serve no predictive value in this regard, other than to perhaps affect the ratio of locals/out-of-towners at such games.

I'd be interested to know if Rogers has any models to forecast attendance. I'm sure they'd be proprietary, if they existed, so it's not like we'd ever see them. You'd think they would if only to decide if and when altering pricing would be an effective strategy.

ComebyDeanChance - Saturday, March 10 2012 @ 04:20 PM EST (#252597) #

As to the Expos post-Bronfman owners (he sold to them in 1990) they were known to not believe in investing in the team - they insisted on a fire sale post-1994. MLB shared revenues were in the $30 mil+ a year range back then and the team payroll didn't crack $20 million until 2000.

Revenue sharing was introduced in the 2002-2006 CBA.

During the period you complain of, the Brochu group was not pocketing $30 million in non-existent revenue sharing. Instead, the team's gross revenues for the 95-99 period averaged about $16 million per year. The article below sources the latter point.

http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/revenue-sharing-working-major-league-baseball-historical-perspective

Finally, getting more people out to meaningful games in September is naturally of assistance to revenue. But that's not the basis of a franchise. The basis is seasons' ticket sales and television contracts. The Expos had neither, which wasn't likely to change much with some more wins one September. The Jays have among the smallest season ticket bases, and I suspect that Rogers likely over-declares when counting TV revenue at around $36 million (meaning they over-declare the team's TV revenue by charging themselves for re-running the same Rogers ads back to back on their own network because they can't find other advertisers).

Montreal and Toronto are the two largest revenue teams - for professional hockey. In fact 5 of the largest 6 NHL revenue teams are in Canada, notwithstanding the much larger population centres in Los Angeles, Texas, Chicago etc. than in places like Vancouver, Calgary, and either Edmonton or Ottawa.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/nhl/article/1109400--for-nhl-the-cash-is-in-canada

The best thing the Jays could do for revenue in Canada is to play hockey against the Leafs. I don't know if Leaf fans care much if it's the Columbus Blue Jackets or the Jays that the Leafs are playing.

Original Ryan - Sunday, March 11 2012 @ 12:53 AM EST (#252602) #

Revenue sharing was introduced in the 2002-2006 CBA.

Revenue sharing has been around longer than that. National TV and merchandising revenue has been shared equally for quite some time.

ComebyDeanChance - Sunday, March 11 2012 @ 07:30 AM EDT (#252603) #

Revenue sharing has been around longer than that. National TV and merchandising revenue has been shared equally for quite some time.

You mean the revenue mlb gained from Mel Allen's game of the week? Trivial in the context of the $30 million a year John suggests the Expos owners were pocketing.

Attendance Since 2000 | 75 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.