Payroll, Attendance, and Wins: Why Playing It Safe is Killing the Indians
Mark Shapiro told the Plain Dealer and fans back in December that winning “is the simplest way to solve our ills. It will improve attendance and increase revenues, and we are working hard to put a winner on the field.” It’s hard to disagree with that sentiment. Win and they will come. But if winning isn’t the only way? What if simply demonstrating a commitment to putting a competitive product on the field could boost attendance. What if fans knew guys like Asdrubal Cabrera and Shin-Soo Choo would be around a few more years? This is where I call bullshit on the Indians.
Before I continue, a quick sidebar about correlation versus causation. Correlation does not suggest causation. Just because two numbers have a relationship does not mean that one number influences the other. Its a logical fallacy and has a fancy Latin name you can learn more about from Wikipedia. So as correlation increases toward 1, it doesn’t suggest that one number influences the other. It just suggests the strength of the correlation.
So, when looking at data regarding the correlation between wins, payroll, and attendance, I don’t mean to suggest causation in these relationships. Instead, I’m using this data to illustrate that potentially something other than winning might impact attendance - payroll.
Correlation of Wins, Attendance, and Payroll from 1985 - 2010
| Wins + Attendance | Payroll + Attendance | Payroll + Wins | |
| Indians | 0.66 | 0.65 | 0.40 |
| MLB | 0.68 | 0.75 | 0.48 |
Historical data for the Indians shows the relationship between payroll and attendance is very similar to the relationship between winning and attendance. Also interesting in the data is the lack of relationship between payroll and winning. So in that regard, the Indians play it smart. No point in throwing good money after bad. Spending money on the right guys is important and only hindsight suggests Cleveland’s investments in Travis Hafner and Grady Sizemore were mistakes. Given the economic trends at the time, those were considered bargains.
On its own, this data is helpful but insufficient in proving my assertion that Dolan’s unwillingness to invest in his own ballclub is the very reason he doesn’t have revenue to invest into his ballclub. But heading into 2012, the Indians only have two players under contract - Sizemore and Hafner. So back to Shapiro’s quote: “[Winning] will improve attendance and increase revenues, and we are working hard to put a winner on the field.” Maybe. But perhaps fans care about more than winning. The ballclub has invested in club seating, modern concessions, and all kind of other sideshow attractions born out of a marketing department working diligently to create the best game day experience possible. But something is missing from the gameday experience - the players themselves.
My advice to Tribe brass? Spend a little. Not like a drunken sailor on leave, but invest in a few guys. Give casual fans reasons to show up three or four times a year and season ticket holders confidence their money isn’t being spent on fake snow and an ice skating rink in the middle of December.
0 comments
Kick things off by filling out the form below.
Leave a Comment