So, you are a hypocrite and have short term memory loss: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=9973915&postcount=285
I completely understand having the hectic schedule and the money factor keeping you away from going to games. I get that. But a person that hasn't attended a game, and apparently has no plans to, doesn't get to b**** about poor attendance...especially if that person lives in the city.
Streaming isn't necessary. There are sports outlets that offer gamecasts and highlights. The point is, if someone wanted to follow the team, they easily could. Radio is close enough "sight", if one wanted to follow the team. Money takes me away from Houston... for days. Most potential attendees make their money in town.
No, you misread, I said, you're not more Houston than me not I'm more Houston than you Take away the emotion and you'll see the difference.
Because you and another poster misquote me. Everybody wants to attack everything thing I say... I'm not your enemy. I've repeatedly said Houston IS good enough for NHL and NASCAR. Not one person has agreed. Do yall really think Houston isn't good enough? No. You just want to argue, call me names, and misquote my words as if I'm the enemy. It's cool though, I'll drop it.
So, then we are the "same" amount of Houston? And, for the record, you actually said I could never be more Houston than you.
BTW- Charlie on 790 just said that there were 5 last place teams who played last night and they all averaged 29,955 fans, over 13,000 more fans than the 'Stros. Those teams have all kinda sucked for years as well. Houstunna is Charlie?
There's a difference between those teams sucking... and what the Astros were the last 3 years (in addition to the TV dilemma). What is more interesting is that if the Astros were on TV the last few years... would the public opinion and embarrassment of them sucking intentionally actually end up being worse? I some ways, the anonymity of being "out of sight/out of mind" helped facilitate the agenda without much excess pressure from fans actually watching them (just increased apathy). The main factor is whether or not any other bad team imitates this strategy... you probably wouldn't get away with it in more rabid markets.
Why do honestly care about attendance? Do you really need the validation? The casual fan is not driving attendance, anyway, btw; the *vast* majority of sold tickets belong to corporations, who leverage them for a variety of reasons. This is true in all sports but way more in baseball, where very few individuals (and even fewer families) can afford/attend 81 games/year. The Astros have not been, from a success standpoint, relevant in 7+ years. Specifically, they've been historically terrible the past four. Corporations are not buying as many tickets, or using as many tickets, in that environment. You're not impressing clients, rewarding employees, or however else corporations leverage tickets, by taking them to watch a truly terrible product. Of course, as soon as the Astros *are* relevant again... the city's largest industry unexpectedly drives into a massive ditch. The energy industry is shredding jobs, cutting costs, and have put "go to Astro games" 1,890,678,261th on their priority lists. Bad timing/luck for the Astros. As games get more meaningful, the casual fan - who, again, can't afford to attend multiple games and has to be more selective (thus, why a mid-week tilt with Tampa in August ain't registering) - will start to arrive in force. If the Astros are still in first in September, I expect those games will see a spike in attendance. But, really... who cares?
Not only that but complaining about it "here" is truly an exercise in futility. We are NOT the average fans... we will go to games (if feasible), we will follow this team through streams/radio apps/sports bars as needed, and some of us will even watch a glorified AAAA team (and pay MLB prices for it). If he really wants to target the fans that are "not" going... you have to basically target the fans that don't know this BBS exists, don't know anything about the Astros minor league prospects, and aren't sitting at home watching nearly every minute of every game they can. Of course, those "casual" fans could one day become diehard fans... and end up right where we are right now... but that takes awhile and doesn't happen overnight (or in a little less than 1 season when the last 3-4 years featured a team that was not worth watching).
I got my tix for both the Greinke and Kershaw match ups this weekend, both behind home plate. Can't wait to watch these guys throw live.
Sunday - Kershaw vs. McCullers... should be the "best" sunday matchup the Astros have had all year, and I expect the crowd there to reflect that (albeit -weather permitting). Its also one of the last Sundays that don't have competition from the NFL/Texans.
Right; that's certainly another aspect - not all fans are created equal. The VAST majority of people in Houston probably couldn't name an Astro to save their life. And certainly couldn't name multiple Astros. This used to confound me when I was younger - but then you grow up, get married, have kids and sports, as much as I still like it, takes a backseat. I would guess there are roughly (and there's no way to even remotely measure this)... 10-15,000 die hard Astro fans in Houston. And we (sort of) know this because that's (roughly) how many people were going to games when this team was historically terrible. Not everyone in the crowd was a die-hard - but they likely far outnumbered corporate/casual fans. That group will grow as the team rehabilitates its reputation and has a sustained period of winning with less roster turnover. Having a few genuine stars will help, too, especially if (as it appears) MLB has tapped Correa to be a face of the league moving forward. There are exactly *two* things that would reverse justifiably low attendance overnight: 1) trading for a player so good/popular that even uber-casual fans recognize him, thus generating genuine buzz (Unit would have been the last one the Astros landed, trade-wise. Clemens and Pettitte, free agent-wise. Beltran? Nope; not at the time. Alou? Nope. Kent? Nope. And certainly not Kazmir and Gomez - though both were good baseball deals that *did* resonate with more invested/knowledgeable fans. All were/are very, very good players - but not players the uber-casual fan had/has heard of); 2) a play-in or playoff game. That's it.
Agreed... and even then, I think a playoff game may struggle to sell out completely (especially if its a mid-week day game). 1998 (even with Randy Johnson) featured two mid-week day playoff games that didn't sellout (albeit the renovated Astrodome, which had too many seats at that point, but still). Same thing happened in 1997 and 1999. 2001's playoff games against the Braves, also mid-week day playoff games, also didn't sell out... which was surprising as this is 1 year removed from MMP opening (and the first 3 million fan season), so there was still some "newness" to the stadium, and a team not far removed from the best run of success they'd had. 2004-2006 were much different stories... in large part due to Clemens, Pettite... and continued decent performances from Oswalt, Berkman, Bagwell, Biggio (that era was the perfect combination of big names and household home-grown players that most fans recognized). This current team is much closer to the Astros teams of 1997-99 (and 2001) than they are to the amazing/rabid/title-hungry 2004-2006 teams.... sellouts are not going to be a given in the first round of the playoffs.
Yeah, true. I think the day games really hurt attendance for those '97-'99 games. (As well as some lingering apathy from bad teams/'94 strike). And I think there was some genuine playoff-failure fatigue by '01. (Braves again, right?) Clemens and Pettitte assured the Astros of a much higher profile, '04-'05, both locally, as well as nationally (IIRC, all of their weekday games were prime time). And, again, in '04, they actually won a playoff series, which helped.
