One which I’ll admit having never really considered from the perspective you presented.

I’m not sure if I agree with the conclusion, but there is most certainly validity to it. Slower games should be less conducive to gathering the attention of the fans than a fast-paced, loose style revolving around high BA’s, low BB’s and tons of movement on the basepaths.

I think it’s entirely possible that this is in play with the M’s and the way they do business. All the casual fans know to look at BA and HR’s, so if they M’s get players that can show reasonable ability with these results then their fanbase should be interested and happy. Thus 3million+ yearly attendance marks. Those same fans don’t want to see a .240 BA with 19 HR’s at the end of the year, even if he’s doing perfectly fine because he’s able to grind out a .380 OBP.

Interesting.

I looked at team stats and attendance figures for 2001 to 2006.

Other than the A’s there were only 7 teams that finished in the top 5 in wins and didn’t finish in the top ten of attendance. The A’s (in a league of their own here) finished in the top five in wins 4 times… and never got higher than 17th in attendance.

In 2001 there were none.
In 2002 there was Atlanta (#13 in attendance) and the Angels (#16 in attendance)
In 2003 there were none.
In 2004 there was Boston (#11 in attendance) and Atlanta (#16 in attendance)
In 2005 there was the Chisox (#17 in attendance)
In 2006 there was Minnesota (#19 in attendance) and Detroit (#13 in attendance.)

Oakland finished #19, 18, 17, 19, 19, 26 in those years.

Of the unusual teams that finished in top 5 wins and out of the top ten for attendance, in the next year, all but two of these teams joined the top 10 in attendance. Only Atlanta and Minnesota failed to draw enough to crack the top 10 in the following year.

Only two of these teams were in the top 10 in basestealing: The 02 Angels and the 05 Chisox. These two were also among the worst in OBP (along with 06 Detroit who sucked at both but led the league in ERA.) The other 4 teams all finished in the top 10 in OBP.

Not surprisingly, Atlanta made the list twice… putting ATL and OAK in a similar category: great teams that no one shows up to see. Not baseball towns? Fanbases tired of getting close but not winning the World Series?

So let me touch on something else you said.

Personally, I find that the real bottom line… the line that everyone keeps smudging… is entertainment. Professional baseball shouldn’t exist. It’s ridiculous that we pay grown men tens of millions of dollars a year to play a kid’s game. It’s ridiculous that I follow it as closely as I do. The only reason I pay any attention to this game is for its entertainment value.

I have had the opportunity to chat with you a couple of times and I have seen firsthand your internal debate about being a Major League Baseball fan. I am all for the introspection that makes up who you are, but you are wrong in saying that professional baseball should not exist. It exists for one reason only and that is demand. In a free market society any venture will shrivel and die if there are no consumers.

It actually bums me out that you curtail your own enjoyment of the game by chastising yourself for liking it. However, that is your own battle and I commend you for even having the ability to think that way.

In your thought process think of this. For many of us, especially myself, baseball is more than entertainment, it is a full on escape without the hangover. Whether I am at the game or listening on the radio, I get to suspend my connection to reality. No bills, no missed quotas, no deaths, no disappointed wife, just baseball. Baseball has helped me through some dark days even when I am watching a horrible home nine.

you’re a closet Giants fan?

Unless you’ve been to both pre and post Mt. Davis Colisuem, it’s not hard to see why folks rather stay home and watch.

Here’s my main problem with it. You’re glossing over the reasons Beane manages the organization the way he does. His job is to put a winning team on the field with zero money to work with, and for him to succeed in his job he has to do things that he might not do with a higher payroll. I’m fairly certain that Beane would hang on to veteran players more often than he does if he had the means to do so, but it’s not currently a reality. If I’m wrong, we’ll find out soon enough.

In addition, Beane’s strategy isn’t necessarily “walks, homers and the rest be damned.” This is the biggest misconception about the book and about the Oakland A’s that people seem to have. Part of that is due to the way the book was written, and part of it is due to high-profile “analysts” and baseball men, who have never read the book and refuse to acknowledge Beane’s success as being remarkable. spouting off ridiculous untruths.

Beane’s strategy is to find the elements of winning baseball teams that the market undervalues. At the time the book was written, that was OBP, as well as a few other things to lesser degrees. As others have said, in the years that followed, OBP became more expensive and the importance of other factors, such as speed and defense, became clearer. The idea was never “this is the only way to build a winning team” it was “this is, at the present time, the best way for the Oakland A’s, given their unique circumstances, to build a winning team.” The A’s priorities have shifted, and they’ve begun doing things that they never would have done in 2002 because the market has changed dramatically.

I think you make some valid points and ask some valid questions, but I think you’re still misrepresenting the situation to a large degree. That doesn’t mean there’s not value in your ideas and the questions you bring up, but I think there’s some flaws in the processes that lead to your conclusions.