Needing Juan Gonzalez to Fill the New Ballpark

Needing Juan Gonzalez to Fill the New Ballpark

Post by Chris Coover » Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:00:00


Quote:


> >Boy, you just refuse to pay any attention to anything I say, don't you?

> I don't just pay attention to what you say. I pay attention to what you
> mean.

> >I was NOT arguing the merits of the Juan Gonzalez trade at all.  I was NOT
> >speculating on why the Tigers picked him up.  I was NOT saying the Tigers
> >picked him up only to boost attendance figures.

> Of course you were arguing the merits of the trade. You always are. You were
> trying to pick apart one more reason that someone might defend the trade.
> Gosh, Chuck, you're the guy who searched the Internet for the opinions of
> the "best and brightest" to prove that you had lots of company with your
> position on this issue. (As if you didn't have enough on this newsgroup.)
> You never stop looking for reasons to criticize the Gonzalez trade. I just
> respond to what you say, and you don't like it.

> >I was responding ONLY to the widespread notion, perpetuated by the baseball
> >press and newsgroup denizens, that the Tigers HAD to get a marquee player
> >for the new ballpark, and that's all.  I was responding to their comments,
> >not to the Tigers actual motives, hidden as they are from me -- and you.

> Where has this notion been widespread? I read everything in the News, Free
> Press and Grand Rapids Press about the Tigers and I haven't seen it
> anywhere.

> >Furthermore, it is NOT a non-existent argument.  It has been written by
> >baseball writers over and over, and parroted by newsgroups habitues, that
> >the Tigers needed to pick up Juan Gonzalez because he's a marquee player
> >whom they need to fill the ballpark.

> Where? Again, I haven't seen it anywhere.

Then you haven't read any national coverage. The them of EVERY article
on ESPN, AP story and others after the trade was that the Tigers felt
they needed a marquee name to boost attendance.
 
 
 

Needing Juan Gonzalez to Fill the New Ballpark

Post by Chuck Hildebrand » Sun, 12 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Every baseball writer I read refers to the Tigers' alleged need to pick up a
high-profile superstar like Juan Gonzalez to fill the new Comerica Park as a
given, without a second thought or a moment of reflection on the notion.

Why does everybody take that for granted?  With a new ballpark and the
talent they have in hand (they don't really suck -- it was a combination of
underachieving and youth), wouldn't that have been enough to fill a brand
spanking new 40,000 seat ballpark, generate some revenue, and go big into
the lucrative FA market after the season?

Does everybody think the Tigers need Juan Gonzalez to fill the new ballpark?

Chuck

 
 
 

Needing Juan Gonzalez to Fill the New Ballpark

Post by mwt » Sun, 12 Mar 2000 04:00:00

On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 19:13:30 -0600, "Chuck Hildebrandt"

Quote:

>Every baseball writer I read refers to the Tigers' alleged need to pick up a
>high-profile superstar like Juan Gonzalez to fill the new Comerica Park as a
>given, without a second thought or a moment of reflection on the notion.

>Why does everybody take that for granted?  With a new ballpark and the
>talent they have in hand (they don't really suck -- it was a combination of
>underachieving and youth), wouldn't that have been enough to fill a brand
>spanking new 40,000 seat ballpark, generate some revenue, and go big into
>the lucrative FA market after the season?

>Does everybody think the Tigers need Juan Gonzalez to fill the new ballpark?

>Chuck

If the Tigers don't contend and Gonzalez doesn't chase the 60 homerun
club, then he won't be filling the ballpark long.

 
 
 

Needing Juan Gonzalez to Fill the New Ballpark

Post by One Man's Foo » Sun, 12 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

>Every baseball writer I read refers to the Tigers' alleged need to pick up
a
>high-profile superstar like Juan Gonzalez to fill the new Comerica Park as
a
>given, without a second thought or a moment of reflection on the notion.

>Why does everybody take that for granted?  With a new ballpark and the
>talent they have in hand (they don't really suck -- it was a combination of
>underachieving and youth), wouldn't that have been enough to fill a brand
>spanking new 40,000 seat ballpark, generate some revenue, and go big into
>the lucrative FA market after the season?

>Does everybody think the Tigers need Juan Gonzalez to fill the new

ballpark?

No, but they do need him to win the pennant.

Did you see his two homers today, Chuck? He's looking awesome!

 
 
 

Needing Juan Gonzalez to Fill the New Ballpark

Post by Chris Cathcar » Sun, 12 Mar 2000 04:00:00


Quote:



>>>Does everybody think the Tigers need Juan Gonzalez to fill
the new
>> ballpark?

>> No, but they do need him to win the pennant.

>They need a HELL of a lot more than Gonzalez for that.

Aw c'mon now, you don't think a 140 PRO+ from your superstar is
going to cut it?  Give me him over a selfish non-team-player
like B**** any day.

Chris

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

 
 
 

Needing Juan Gonzalez to Fill the New Ballpark

Post by Voro » Mon, 13 Mar 2000 04:00:00


Quote:
>>Does everybody think the Tigers need Juan Gonzalez to fill the new
> ballpark?
> No, but they do need him to win the pennant.

They need a HELL of a lot more than Gonzalez for that.

--
Voros McCracken

http://www.baseballstuff.com/fraser/dips.html

 
 
 

Needing Juan Gonzalez to Fill the New Ballpark

Post by steve gardne » Mon, 13 Mar 2000 04:00:00

I think the Tigers need to be a very competitive team to fill that ballpark.
They need help to be competitive. Juan is such a good score for you guys. If
I was in Detroit, I would be chompin at the bit to go see hi. I really
believe he will take this team to another level.....
Quote:

>Every baseball writer I read refers to the Tigers' alleged need to pick up
a
>high-profile superstar like Juan Gonzalez to fill the new Comerica Park as
a
>given, without a second thought or a moment of reflection on the notion.

>Why does everybody take that for granted?  With a new ballpark and the
>talent they have in hand (they don't really suck -- it was a combination of
>underachieving and youth), wouldn't that have been enough to fill a brand
>spanking new 40,000 seat ballpark, generate some revenue, and go big into
>the lucrative FA market after the season?

>Does everybody think the Tigers need Juan Gonzalez to fill the new
ballpark?

>Chuck

 
 
 

Needing Juan Gonzalez to Fill the New Ballpark

Post by Chris Cathcar » Mon, 13 Mar 2000 04:00:00

In article <gJJy4.53199

Quote:

>I think the Tigers need to be a very competitive team to fill
that ballpark.
>They need help to be competitive. Juan is such a good score for
you guys. If
>I was in Detroit, I would be chompin at the bit to go see hi. I
really
>believe he will take this team to another level.....

Oh yeah, beyond a doubt.  Anyone who has his HR, BA, and RBI
numbers has gotta be one of the premier batters in the league,
without question!  His bat must be worth 10 extra wins to his
team.  Those two MVP's were well-deserved if you ask me!

Chris

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

 
 
 

Needing Juan Gonzalez to Fill the New Ballpark

Post by Mischa E Gelm » Mon, 13 Mar 2000 04:00:00



Quote:
>without question!  His bat must be worth 10 extra wins to his
>team.  Those two MVP's were well-deserved if you ask me!

Well, his bat was worth 46 runs last year according to VORP, which made
him the 8th best RF (after Manny, Abreu, Vladimir, Shawn, Belle, Larry
Walker and Slammin Sammy), up there with some pretty good names.  It also
landed him a good deal ahead of stathead faves like Sean Casey, John
Olerud and Rolen.  He was far from a negative for Texas and was pretty
much a premier bat, about 38th overall in VORP, good for #2 on most clubs
and #1 on some.  As far as I can see, Dean Palmer led Detroit last year
with only a 29.7 for instance.  According to PRC/27, Juan was the #7 in RF
in terms of value, trailing the same crowd as before (except for Sammy)
and worth 37.9 runs over replacement.  In terms of PRC/27, he was 6th,
passing up Belle.  Sounds like a mighty decent hitter to me, one who will
certainly benefit his new team. I think the pseudo-stathead crowd has once
again made the leap from "overrated" to "worthless."

--
The proper ratio for salaries for employed people, between the top people
and the rank & file, should be twenty-fold, post-tax.  That's the highest.
Beyond that, you create social tension - J.P. Morgan
In 1995 the average Fortune 500 CEO was earning 157 times as much as a factory worker

 
 
 

Needing Juan Gonzalez to Fill the New Ballpark

Post by Cordial Bo » Mon, 13 Mar 2000 04:00:00


Quote:
> Why does everybody take that for granted?  With a new ballpark and the
> talent they have in hand (they don't really suck -- it was a combination of
> underachieving and youth), wouldn't that have been enough to fill a brand
> spanking new 40,000 seat ballpark, generate some revenue, and go big into
> the lucrative FA market after the season?
> Does everybody think the Tigers need Juan Gonzalez to fill the new ballpark?

If Gonzalez is amongst the league leaders in rbi, hr's, as he
usually is, then Detroit will have a genuine vehicle - a name - to
build their advertising around.  There are lots of different kinds
of people who pay attention to the game without really knowing or
caring too much about it. And by keying on individuals with gaudy
numbers Detroit hopes to lure in budding stat fans and victims of
other kinds of hype.

cordially, as always,

rm

 
 
 

Needing Juan Gonzalez to Fill the New Ballpark

Post by Cordial Bo » Mon, 13 Mar 2000 04:00:00


Quote:
> Aw c'mon now, you don't think a 140 PRO+ from your superstar is
> going to cut it?  Give me him over a selfish non-team-player
> like B**** any day.

Could you please explain to me what kind of player a 140 PRO+ player
is?  What kind of a hole such a player fills in your lineup?

Just curious.

cordially, as always,

rm

 
 
 

Needing Juan Gonzalez to Fill the New Ballpark

Post by TomCro » Mon, 13 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Quote:


> > Why does everybody take that for granted?  With a new ballpark and the
> > talent they have in hand (they don't really suck -- it was a combination of
> > underachieving and youth), wouldn't that have been enough to fill a brand
> > spanking new 40,000 seat ballpark, generate some revenue, and go big into
> > the lucrative FA market after the season?

> > Does everybody think the Tigers need Juan Gonzalez to fill the new ballpark?

> If Gonzalez is amongst the league leaders in rbi, hr's, as he
> usually is, then Detroit will have a genuine vehicle - a name - to
> build their advertising around.

How else do you get fans? How do sport teams create followings? A young kid who is
taking up baseball has a favorite team on which he has favorite players. If  you
are a 10-year-old pitcher who do idolize? Are you aware of their stats? You bet.
Don't try to tell me that kid isn't a true baseball fan. All professional major
leaguers have had idols and still do. Go check on who Tony Gwynn idolized when he
was younger. He knows the stats. He knows more about baseball than you ever will
Rodge.

Quote:
> There are lots of different kinds
> of people who pay attention to the game without really knowing or
> caring too much about it. And by keying on individuals with gaudy
> numbers Detroit hopes to lure in budding stat fans and victims of
> other kinds of hype.

    And they'll lure others as well, fans which don't fit into you're narrow
definitions.
Quote:

> cordially, as always,

> rm

 
 
 

Needing Juan Gonzalez to Fill the New Ballpark

Post by Chuck Hildebrand » Mon, 13 Mar 2000 04:00:00

OK, I've heard a lot of comments on this issue so far, and in general the
consensus seems to be:

 - The Tigers need a winning ballclub to fill its new ballpark all year in
2000.
 - Juan Gonzalez needs to have a huge year for the Tigers to fill its new
ballpark all year in 2000.

My contention is that the new ballpark will basically fill itself up, mostly
because it's a new ballpark, and the actual team and players on the field is
much less a factor in first-year ballpark attendance.

I've think I've compiled enough statistical evidence to back up this
contention, which I have attached in the form of an Excel spreadsheet table
(saved down to version 4.0 for Windows).

This table looks at the six teams who have moved into brand new ballparks
during the 90s, excluding expansion teams.  Those teams are (new park's
first years): Chicago White Sox (1991); Baltimore (1992); Texas (1994);
Cleveland (1994); Colorado (1995); and Atlanta (1997).

The table compares for each team, between the first year in its new park and
the last year in its old park: ballpark capacity; total attendance; # home
games; % capacity of parks filled throughout the year; team record; finish
in standings; and "marquee player" and his stats. (I must admit upfront that
my definition of marquee player is a little loose, based on my
interpretation of which one player on each ballclub could be considered him
whom the fans "came to the ballpark to see".  I invite anyone to correct me
if they think I chose the wrong player as the "marquee player", but I
included this kind of comparison to analyze the idea that that's what the
Tigers "need" to fill their new ballpark.)

A lot of you don't have Excel on your machines.  Let me summarize the table
for you:

 - The six new ballparks averaged -20% less seating capacity than the old
ballparks, but averaged +18% higher *total* attendance.  This overall
comparison includes two of the six ballparks (Texas, Cleveland) opening
their seasons in strike-shortened 1994, despite Cleveland having lower
actual attendance. (One team, Colorado, played a season in their last
ballpark in 1994 -- and opened their new ballpark in strike-shortened 1995.)

 - Capacity of ballpark filled went from 55% of total in the last year to
85% the next year.  Lest you think the capacity stat is spurious because
Cleveland and Denver had huge capacities in their old ballparks versus their
new ones, I removed them from the equation and found that average seating
capacity for the remaining four clubs dropped -7% for their new parks -- yet
total attendance still went up +29%, and capacity filled went up +48% as
well.

 - Every single club experienced at least a +24% increase in total capacity
of seats filled for the year.  Here's an interesting stat: New Comiskey
Park, widely excoriated as the last of the crappy new ballparks, and Camden
Yards, the first of the widely-praised new "retro" ballpark, experienced the
exact same capacity-filled increase: +74%.

 - The records of the teams in the new park averaged a .547 record, vs. .507
in the old.  Four of six teams in the new ballparks had better records in
the new park than the old park.  An argument could be made that a new
ballpark puts a team in a better frame of mind to play.  However, the two
teams with worse records (White Sox and Texas) still experienced substantial
increases in attendance.  In fact, Texas had the best home record of any AL
team in its last year at Arlington Stadium -- and STILL experienced a large
increase in attendance.

 - Teams did tend to be more in contention their first year in the new
ballpark versus last year in old.  Two of four non-1994 teams (Atlanta,
Colorado) in new ballparks were either in first place or within four games
of first (keeping them in contention through the last week of the season),
and the two 1994 teams were within the same shouting distance on 8/12/94
(Cleveland, Texas).  The two teams that were out of it in their new years
were White Sox and Baltimore -- the same two who experienced the +74%
increase mentioned above.

OK -- so I think I've sufficiently demonstrated that regardless of record,
and regardless of status of division title contention, all teams experienced
a huge run-up in attendance for the first year in a new park versus the last
year in the old one.

Now -- how about that marquee player argument?  The one that says that the
Tigers need Juan Gonzalez to fill that new ballpark of theirs in 2000?

Let's take this on a team by team basis:

 - Atlanta:  Had many marquee players on both the team in the old park and
the team in the new park.  +19% increase in attendance, +24% increase in
capacity.  Marquee Player factor: none.
 - Baltimore: Cal Ripken was the marquee player in 1991, but slumped badly
in 1992.  Mike Mussina became the marquee player in a monster 18-5/2.54
year, but only went to the mound every fourth or fifth day.  Mike Devereaux
had the best offensive stats for the 1992 Orioles -- but marquee player?
Not.  Marquee Player factor: none.
 - Chicago White Sox: Bobby Thigpen set the MLB saves record in 1990 with
57, so he was trotted out there a lot, and the Sox fans went wild over him.
The 1990 White Sox had not marquee offensive players, but the 1991 Sox sure
did: it was Frank Thomas' first monster season, and he played every single
day, not just when the Sox were winning in the ninth inning.  The Sox had
the same basic record both season.  Marquee Player factor: slight.
 - Cleveland: Albert Belle had a monster year in Municipal in 1993.  Albert
Belle had a monster year at the Jake in 1994.  Same diff -- plus the strike
robbed Cleveland of a pennant in 1994 that they didn't experience in 1993.
Marquee Player factor: none.
 - Colorado: Andres Galarraga had the only really great year for the Rocks
in Mile High in 1994.  He was on his way to a 50-HR season.  In 1995, a lot
of Rock had great years: Big Cat, Larry Walker, Vinny Castilla, and of
course Dante Bichette.  However, Colorado was also in a tight pennant race
in 1995, which always spikes attendance.  Between one single marquee player
and a pennant race, I would have to say: Marquee Player factor: none.
 - Texas:  Juan Gonzalez won the first of his two MVPs in the last year of

Newly-acquired Jose Canseco picked up the pace a bit in 1994, although he
didn't have quite the season Juan had.  Bottom line: Rangers already had a
marquee player in the old park -- they didn't have to pick one up.  Marquee
Player factor: none.

So there you have it -- my case for my contention that the Tigers did NOT
*have* to pick up a marquee player to fill the new Comerica Park in 2000.
They would have done so with the same exact team on the field.

Regardless of record and regardless of the players on the field, every
single one of the six teams who moved into new ballparks in the 1990's
experienced substantial increases in attendance versus the prior year.

Chuck


Quote:
> Every baseball writer I read refers to the Tigers' alleged need to pick up
a
> high-profile superstar like Juan Gonzalez to fill the new Comerica Park as
a
> given, without a second thought or a moment of reflection on the notion.

> Why does everybody take that for granted?  With a new ballpark and the
> talent they have in hand (they don't really suck -- it was a combination
of
> underachieving and youth), wouldn't that have been enough to fill a brand
> spanking new 40,000 seat ballpark, generate some revenue, and go big into
> the lucrative FA market after the season?

> Does everybody think the Tigers need Juan Gonzalez to fill the new
ballpark?

> Chuck

 
 
 

Needing Juan Gonzalez to Fill the New Ballpark

Post by James Ka » Mon, 13 Mar 2000 04:00:00


Quote:
>...  In terms of PRC/27, he was 6th,
>passing up Belle.  Sounds like a mighty decent hitter to me, one who will
>certainly benefit his new team. I think the pseudo-stathead crowd has once
>again made the leap from "overrated" to "worthless."

No one doubts he will benefit the team, in the narrow sense that he will
perform well above replacement value.  The issue is whether the team
got a *net* benefit from the trade in giving up a number of younger,
promising, lower-paid players like Thompson and Kapler.    
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn
 
 
 

Needing Juan Gonzalez to Fill the New Ballpark

Post by One Man's Foo » Mon, 13 Mar 2000 04:00:00

Chuck, this is all well and good, but you are fighting a non-existent
argument.

The reason Gonzalez was acquired was to make the team better, not just
because there was a new stadium and it needed to be filled.

You make it sound like the Tigers would never have made the trade had they
been returning to Tiger Stadium, and that the whole purpose of the trade was
to boost attendance numbers.

Wrong and wrong.

The purpose of the trade is to make the team a more serious pennant
contender. So you are arguing a red herring.

But if you're amusing yourself, don't let me stop you.

Quote:

>OK, I've heard a lot of comments on this issue so far, and in general the
>consensus seems to be:

> - The Tigers need a winning ballclub to fill its new ballpark all year in
>2000.
> - Juan Gonzalez needs to have a huge year for the Tigers to fill its new
>ballpark all year in 2000.

>My contention is that the new ballpark will basically fill itself up,
mostly
>because it's a new ballpark, and the actual team and players on the field
is
>much less a factor in first-year ballpark attendance.

>I've think I've compiled enough statistical evidence to back up this
>contention, which I have attached in the form of an Excel spreadsheet table
>(saved down to version 4.0 for Windows).

>This table looks at the six teams who have moved into brand new ballparks
>during the 90s, excluding expansion teams.  Those teams are (new park's
>first years): Chicago White Sox (1991); Baltimore (1992); Texas (1994);
>Cleveland (1994); Colorado (1995); and Atlanta (1997).

>The table compares for each team, between the first year in its new park
and
>the last year in its old park: ballpark capacity; total attendance; # home
>games; % capacity of parks filled throughout the year; team record; finish
>in standings; and "marquee player" and his stats. (I must admit upfront
that
>my definition of marquee player is a little loose, based on my
>interpretation of which one player on each ballclub could be considered him
>whom the fans "came to the ballpark to see".  I invite anyone to correct me
>if they think I chose the wrong player as the "marquee player", but I
>included this kind of comparison to analyze the idea that that's what the
>Tigers "need" to fill their new ballpark.)

>A lot of you don't have Excel on your machines.  Let me summarize the table
>for you:

> - The six new ballparks averaged -20% less seating capacity than the old
>ballparks, but averaged +18% higher *total* attendance.  This overall
>comparison includes two of the six ballparks (Texas, Cleveland) opening
>their seasons in strike-shortened 1994, despite Cleveland having lower
>actual attendance. (One team, Colorado, played a season in their last
>ballpark in 1994 -- and opened their new ballpark in strike-shortened
1995.)

> - Capacity of ballpark filled went from 55% of total in the last year to
>85% the next year.  Lest you think the capacity stat is spurious because
>Cleveland and Denver had huge capacities in their old ballparks versus
their
>new ones, I removed them from the equation and found that average seating
>capacity for the remaining four clubs dropped -7% for their new parks --
yet
>total attendance still went up +29%, and capacity filled went up +48% as
>well.

> - Every single club experienced at least a +24% increase in total capacity
>of seats filled for the year.  Here's an interesting stat: New Comiskey
>Park, widely excoriated as the last of the crappy new ballparks, and Camden
>Yards, the first of the widely-praised new "retro" ballpark, experienced
the
>exact same capacity-filled increase: +74%.

> - The records of the teams in the new park averaged a .547 record, vs.
.507
>in the old.  Four of six teams in the new ballparks had better records in
>the new park than the old park.  An argument could be made that a new
>ballpark puts a team in a better frame of mind to play.  However, the two
>teams with worse records (White Sox and Texas) still experienced
substantial
>increases in attendance.  In fact, Texas had the best home record of any AL
>team in its last year at Arlington Stadium -- and STILL experienced a large
>increase in attendance.

> - Teams did tend to be more in contention their first year in the new
>ballpark versus last year in old.  Two of four non-1994 teams (Atlanta,
>Colorado) in new ballparks were either in first place or within four games
>of first (keeping them in contention through the last week of the season),
>and the two 1994 teams were within the same shouting distance on 8/12/94
>(Cleveland, Texas).  The two teams that were out of it in their new years
>were White Sox and Baltimore -- the same two who experienced the +74%
>increase mentioned above.

>OK -- so I think I've sufficiently demonstrated that regardless of record,
>and regardless of status of division title contention, all teams
experienced
>a huge run-up in attendance for the first year in a new park versus the
last
>year in the old one.

>Now -- how about that marquee player argument?  The one that says that the
>Tigers need Juan Gonzalez to fill that new ballpark of theirs in 2000?

>Let's take this on a team by team basis:

> - Atlanta:  Had many marquee players on both the team in the old park and
>the team in the new park.  +19% increase in attendance, +24% increase in
>capacity.  Marquee Player factor: none.
> - Baltimore: Cal Ripken was the marquee player in 1991, but slumped badly
>in 1992.  Mike Mussina became the marquee player in a monster 18-5/2.54
>year, but only went to the mound every fourth or fifth day.  Mike Devereaux
>had the best offensive stats for the 1992 Orioles -- but marquee player?
>Not.  Marquee Player factor: none.
> - Chicago White Sox: Bobby Thigpen set the MLB saves record in 1990 with
>57, so he was trotted out there a lot, and the Sox fans went wild over him.
>The 1990 White Sox had not marquee offensive players, but the 1991 Sox sure
>did: it was Frank Thomas' first monster season, and he played every single
>day, not just when the Sox were winning in the ninth inning.  The Sox had
>the same basic record both season.  Marquee Player factor: slight.
> - Cleveland: Albert Belle had a monster year in Municipal in 1993.  Albert
>Belle had a monster year at the Jake in 1994.  Same diff -- plus the strike
>robbed Cleveland of a pennant in 1994 that they didn't experience in 1993.
>Marquee Player factor: none.
> - Colorado: Andres Galarraga had the only really great year for the Rocks
>in Mile High in 1994.  He was on his way to a 50-HR season.  In 1995, a lot
>of Rock had great years: Big Cat, Larry Walker, Vinny Castilla, and of
>course Dante Bichette.  However, Colorado was also in a tight pennant race
>in 1995, which always spikes attendance.  Between one single marquee player
>and a pennant race, I would have to say: Marquee Player factor: none.
> - Texas:  Juan Gonzalez won the first of his two MVPs in the last year of

>Newly-acquired Jose Canseco picked up the pace a bit in 1994, although he
>didn't have quite the season Juan had.  Bottom line: Rangers already had a
>marquee player in the old park -- they didn't have to pick one up.  Marquee
>Player factor: none.

>So there you have it -- my case for my contention that the Tigers did NOT
>*have* to pick up a marquee player to fill the new Comerica Park in 2000.
>They would have done so with the same exact team on the field.

>Regardless of record and regardless of the players on the field, every
>single one of the six teams who moved into new ballparks in the 1990's
>experienced substantial increases in attendance versus the prior year.

>Chuck



>> Every baseball writer I read refers to the Tigers' alleged need to pick
up
>a
>> high-profile superstar like Juan Gonzalez to fill the new Comerica Park
as
>a
>> given, without a second thought or a moment of reflection on the notion.

>> Why does everybody take that for granted?  With a new ballpark and the
>> talent they have in hand (they don't really suck -- it was a combination
>of
>> underachieving and youth), wouldn't that have been enough to fill a brand
>> spanking new 40,000 seat ballpark, generate some revenue, and go big into
>> the lucrative FA market after the season?

>> Does everybody think the Tigers need Juan Gonzalez to fill the new
>ballpark?

>> Chuck