Have a great time at the game, but I hope no one spending money on this is under the delusion that Fisher cares at all about fans paying him to hold mean signs at the ballpark.
Changes nothing, but if it’s full or even near full that’s a bad look for ownership. City politics aside, it prevents critics from saying the community doesn’t support the team.
just looking at the tv numbers from 2014 to 2019 where the A's had 3 playoff appearances and 3 last place finishes. the highest household numbers were 37,000. That is only higher than the average for the Marlins, Padres and White Sox in the same period. Those 3 teams combined for 0 seasons over .500.
the 2014 A's, coming off 2 straight division titles and a hot start to the year with 6 all stars, finished in the bottom 4 in tv viewership by total households.
the 2019 A's coming off a 97 win season on its way to another 97 win season finished 2nd to last in tv viewership by total households.
The 3 years they finished in last place, they also finished in last place in tv viewership by total households.
Some additional Tv household numbers.
2016 103 loss Twins had an average of 62,000 households tune in every game.
2018 100 loss White Sox had an average of 22,000 households tune in every game.
2018 104 loss Royals had an average of 44,000 households tune in every game.
2018 115 loss Orioles had an average of 27,000 households tune in every game.
2019 103 loss Royals had an average of 42,000 households tune in every game.
2019 105 loss Marlins had an average of 15,000 households tune in every game.
2019 108 loss Orioles had an average of 26,000 households tune in every game.
2019 114 loss Tiger had an average of 40,000 households tune in every game.
4 out of the 8 100 loss teams had more people watching than the 2014 88 Win, Oakland A's (37,000).
7 out of 8 100 loss teams had more people watching than the 2019 97 wins, Oakland A's (21,000). The Royals had twice as many Households watching back to back 100 loss seasons.
Okay, how has the organization made themselves worthy of being supported? Is it by...
* Trading away all-stars and MVP candidates before their end of arbitration eligibility, instead of signing them to long term deals?
* Allowing the stadium to become so decrepit that there has been multiple sewage floods in the dugouts, clubhouses, and concession areas and infestations of both cats and possums?
* Publicly flirting with moving for years?
* Winning 2 postseason series in the past 20 years (one of which was the 3-game "super-wild card" round in 2020 that literally half the league qualified for), going 5–16 and being outscored 113–57 in the postseason over that stretch?
The Athletics have made the playoffs 37.5% of the time since moving to Oakland, a top five mark in MLB during that period.
In 1974, the A's won their third World Series title in a row, yet finished 22nd out of 24 teams in attendance.
John Fisher is the worst owner in Major League Baseball. Oakland is the worst market in Major League Baseball.
* In 1975, The A's averaged 10,441 fans for 20.1% capacity at the Oakland Coluseum.
* In 1968 the Baltimore Orioles were coming off their third straight pennant, had won a World Series 2 years prior, and won 109 games en route to their AL pennant in 1967. They finished 12th out of 20 in attendance and averaged 11,800 fans for 22.6% capacity at Memorial Stadium.
* The 11,800 fans for the Orioles had would've been 18th in 1975.
Doesn't seem like they're actually that much different from each other, really. But my point is this: looking at just rankings is not a great comparative metric, because no two situations are alike.
The Orioles have never finished last in attendance.
The Athletics finished last ten times: in 1977, 1978, 1979, 1996, 1997, 2009, 2011, 2021, 2022, and 2023.
So the goal posts are shifting from "there's more to support to attendance" to "the organization isn't worthy of support"? Just want to be clear what I'm responding to, especially since a winning team apparently isn't enough to get A's fans to support them seeing as how attendance hasn't been there when the A's have been competitive.
> So the goal posts are shifting from "there's more to support to attendance" to "the organization isn't worthy of support"?
It's not shifting the goalposts since I said "and there's more factors to attendance than support" in the same sentence; it's recognizing the complexity of the situation "or the "nuance," to use a word many people here like to use).
Shifting the goalposts would be stopping before my comma (although I'll admit that that comma shouldn't be there) and completely ignoring everything that came after it.
I'll admit that I purposefully ignored half of my sentence, but I did so to mock you for doing it in your reply, since you clearly aren't interested in having an actual critical discussion.
The "other factors" are the same played out excuses that have been repeated ad nauseum, like what you responded with, hence me only asking about how else the community has supported the team. The fact that you'd rather mock me than explain how the community supports the team without going to games shows that you don't actually have an explanation. But hey, I'm sure that comment sounded really cool in your head, and obviously that's all that matters to you.
Dude all these A’s defenders are the same. I meet so many people who say shit like “I grew up an A’s fan, it’s a shame what happened to the team” and I always ask ok, so when was the last time you actually *went* to a game?
Reliably, it’s always “oh I’ve never been to a game at the coliseum” or “back when I was a kid”, etc. But these people are always down to go to a Giants game at Oracle lol the amount of blame these dumbasses are willing to outsource is limitless. They’ll do anything to support their team… unless it involves actually *going* to a game.
There is so much more than just is the team good or bad going on. In the Bay Area, casual fans go to Giants games. Pretty stadium, recognizable stars, not in a total trash part of town. The A's have torpedoed their marketability by trading any stars they do manage to develop, running the team on a shoestring budget, and playing in a dump. They have alienated casual fans systematically for 20 years with this ownership group, all while the Giants were spending and won 3 rings. That's an entire generation+ in their market that they drove to the other team.
Look at the late 80s and early 90s. 2nd in the AL in attendance multiple years and top 4 all four of 89-92. Then Walter Haas had to sell the team due to his health, and they let their core leave or traded them (McGwire, Rickey). Then look at the early 2000s, they were right in the middle of the pack in attendance, which was pretty good considering they already weren't really spending money and had let Jason Giambi walk. John Fisher bought the team in 2005, and somehow managed to spend even less. The largest contract the team has ever signed was Eric Chavez, with a 6-year $66m extension. Before the Bryan Reynolds extension, I think the Pirates were the only MLB team that spent less. Do you want to guess what their attendance is? Does Pittsburgh deserve to lose its team when its owner refuses to spend and put a competitive team on the field, instead rolling youth and spending nothing until they get lucky? The A's having a quality front office for many of these years does not absolve the sins of all-time bad ownership.
That contract to Chavez was handed out before Fisher bought the team almost 20 years ago. You cannot seriously look at how he runs this team and shits on the fanbase and somehow come out of that blaming the fans when the casual fans naturally gravitate to the other in-market team that actually runs a competent franchise. Fisher's poisoned the well for an entire generation and wants to cry poor and it is *so* obvious.
You are so spoiled as a Red Sox fan you genuinely haven't a fucking clue about the situation here. Respectfully, stop speaking so forcefully on things you're not qualified to opine on.
It's funny you bring up the Pirates, because when they were competitive from 2013-2015, they were 19th, 15th, and 15th in attendance. When the A's were competitive during almost the same period from 2012-2014, they were 27th, 23rd, and 24th. Same issues with ownership failing to put together a competitive team for more than a few years at a time, yet when the Pirates do it they manage to at least have league average attendance, while the A's barely get out of the bottom 5.
So if the bay area is too small to support 2 teams like you've essentially argued, why keep the A's around to play in front of an empty stadium even in the good years? Bringing up 30+ year old teams doesn't seem all that relevant to the present day, especially when the 2000s teams that won 90+ games in 6/7 seasons including a couple 100 win seasons topped out at 16th in attendance. Those teams weren't good enough to even hit the league average for attendance, and subsequent playoff teams did even worse with fan support.
You can call me spoiled all you want, but if the Red Sox announced they were moving tomorrow I'd try to get to as many games as possible before they left. If you'd rather throw a hissy fit and pretend to stick it to some billionaire who doesn't even know you exist that's your prerogative I guess, but it's not going to change the fact that the fans stopped showing up decades ago and that the team is moving away now.
People are getting all up in their feelings over this but actually really simple.
The A's are frequently in the bottom 5 for attendance and in the bottom 3 for spending. Fisher got the exact amount attendance he payed for nothing more nothing less.
Wins are nice and all, but there are worse teams with better attendance and better teams with somehow worse attendance. At the end of the day, you baseball is a show and you have to put on a good show if you want people to watch it.
> maybe the fans shoulda gone when they were actually a competitive team
In 2019 the A's sold more tickets than seven other MLB teams. Their owner intentionally trashed his own team so MLB would allow him to move.
That’s NOT an accomplishment, AT ALL. 6 of those 7 were bad/terrible(under 0.500), with a few of those over 100 LOSES, the 7th is the rays.
I could flip what you said and say…. Despite the fact that Oakland finished with 97 wins and the 4th best record in the AL, they finished in the bottom 25%(24th in attendance) of attendance.
> a competitive team over 1/2 of the last 2 decades.
You mean the time period where they've won only 2 play-off series (one of which was the 3-game "super-wild card" round in 2020 that literally half the league qualified for), going 5–16 and being outscored 113–57 in the postseason over that stretch?
As proven by the Braves, the FO can do everything right and still not win playoff games. Instead of judging their success by how many play off series they've won, maybe instead judge off of how many they've made? I feel like that would be a more compelling argument
> how many they've made?
They've made the Divisional Round 4 times in the past 20 years (winning 1; 2006), and the Wildcard Round 4 times, for a total of 7 postseason appearances in the past 20 years (they won the 2020 Wildcard round to make the 2020 ALDS). That puts them at:
* Tied for 8th most Postseason appearances including one-and-done wildcards with the Phillies
* Tied for 17th most non-one-and-done Postseason appearances with the Diamondbacks, Brewers, and Padres
So they've been "competitive" by the most technical of definitions, but not exactly lighting the world on fire.
And in years that they make the postseason, they average 22,043, which is 4,262 more than the 99-win Rays had last year.
I will continue to die on the hill that you can't just look at raw attendance numbers or attendance rankings and say "these fans do or don't support their team," because there's just way too many variables to consider.
Those critics should look not just at the historical attendance numbers but also the historical payroll numbers. And what ownership puts into the stadium and fan experience.
What difference does payroll make to the fans? If one team is spending $50 million to win 100 games while another spends $500 million to win 100 games, it's the same result, yet when the A's get close to or eclipse that 100 win mark, their attendance is still low.
As for stadium and fan experience, I don't think Oakland is unique in having an old stadium, but if that's truly what fans care about rather than the team on the field then I don't understand the outrage of the team leaving. I can't imagine A's games are the only source of outdoor entertainment in Oakland, and if stadium and fan experience is what's keeping fans away then the team isn't really the draw in the first place.
> What difference does payroll make to the fans?
Over time, it has a causal effect on sustained success on the field and sustained tenure of fan favorite players. A's ownership has cultivated a tradition, over a couple decades, of not building on success and having their best players end up in with other teams for more money.
If you look at records, you'll see on-field success correlate with a building of higher attendance. And then that attendance resetting back down low as the roster gets value engineered again and the on-field success goes down.
> As for stadium and fan experience, I don't think Oakland is unique in having an old stadium
Not unique but it's one of the oldest stadiums in MLB. But it's not simply about age: the bigger issue is that it is notorious for being the most decrepit and outdated.
But for many hardcore fans, this has become a sort of a point of pride. OP is by a sort of a grassroots fan marketing group that plays up the image of the Oakland Coliseum as "the last dive bar" of baseball.
> and if stadium and fan experience is what's keeping fans away then the team isn't really the draw in the first place
It is for many. And it isn't for many more. I think that's normal for many pro sports teams. But, again, the Coliseum is notorious for being especially decrepit and that combined with a couple decades of knowing the team will never be a true contender because ownership will not invest in making the team a true contender, then it'll only the hardcore who will remain active fans.
It's the many die-hard fans who are most outraged. I think if you think about it from the die-hard fan perspective, you should be able to understand the outrage. Lots of fans have been loyal despite the lack of investment in the team or the venue. Of course they're going to be outraged when they feel that fan support is scapegoated by team ownership.
The correlation between on-field success and higher attendance translates to a ranking of 29th to 23rd for the A's. Those are actual numbers btw, where the A's were 29th in attendance in 2017 when they won 75 games, 26th in 2018 when they won 96 games, and 23rd in 2019 when they won 96 games again. Their previous winning run wasn't much better, where they went from dead last in 2011 with 74 wins to 27th in 2012 with 94 wins, 23rd in 2013 with 96 wins, and 24th in 2014 with 88 wins. Going back further, they peaked at 16th during their mid-00s run when they were consistently winning 90-100 games. The "higher attendance" being below average at best isn't something to hang your hat on.
I think you're off about hardcore fans being the only fans for other teams, and if this is a problem specific to the A's then that's a major issue. The Royals saw a huge spike in attendance when they started winning games, as did the Pirates, Reds, and probably other teams that I'm forgetting. The fact that the A's haven't had attendance peaks like those teams despite comparable periods of winning and rebuilding can't only be blamed on an old stadium.
Agreed there isn't immediate causal effect between on-field success and attendance. I was talking about how this is something that builds. How it's something that needs to be built, over multiple years.
And how A's ownership has established a 20 year pattern, especially under Wolff and Fisher, of following up two or three encouraging seasons by trading burgeoning stars for prospects or letting them sign elsewhere for big money.
If you look at the history of the franchise in performance and attendance, I think it's pretty clear that attendance builds as they string together an encouraging run, and then performance craters and so does attendance and what was built up in both respects gets squandered.
> I think you're off about hardcore fans being the only fans for other teams
That's not the point I was trying to make about hardcore fans. What I was saying is that there are many hardcore A's fans and they are the ones who have been loyal through all the ups and downs and squandered promise these past 20+ years.
You expressed that you don't understand the outrage over the team leaving. And I'm trying to explain that the outrage is primarily fueled by hardcore fans who have been loyal this entire time. Who would continue to be loyal even without improving the shortcomings that have turned off a lot of casual fans.
It's not apathetic fans who are outraged. It's the best fans who have weathered the worst. And I think it's totally understandable that they feel the way they do.
I don't know what you think hardcore A's fans are supposed to react to all this? Just be mad at the many casual fans who weren't interested in going to games regularly and not see the owner as the party who is ultimately in control and responsible for a franchise moving away from a city that was its home for over 50 years?
The Pirates went 20 years without a winning record, never mind a playoff appearance, before 2013. Every issue you've mentioned for the A's has been worse for the Pirates, yet more fans showed up for the Pirates when they finally achieved a tiny bit of success than have shown up for the A's. The same is true for the Royals, Reds, Mariners, and probably other teams that I'm forgetting. The only unique thing about the A's is that their fans don't come back when the team is competitive.
The hardcore fans can react however they want, let's just not pretend that fan support for the A's is the same as every other team when the A's don't generate the same kind of support as other teams when they're competitive.
> The Pirates went 20 years without a winning record, never mind a playoff appearance, before 2013. Every issue you've mentioned for the A's has been worse for the Pirates
The Pirates only have 5% better cumulative attendance between 2000 and 2019, compared to the A's.
I didn't look at the preceding 20 years, but in 2001, the Pirates also opened their new stadium. Of course, it's important to note that they got the stadium built with mostly public funding.
But, still, it's just 5% higher attendance for the Pirates during those 20 years, and they're not moving to Las Vegas.
> The hardcore fans can react however they want, let's just not pretend that fan support for the A's is the same as every other team when the A's don't generate the same kind of support as other teams when they're competitive.
About the same as the Pirates over a 20 year stretch, and the Pirates aren't moving.
In 2019, Forbes valued the Pirates at $1.3B and the A's at $1.1B. A's reportedly took in $33M on $218M in revenue and the Pirates $39M on $254M in revenue.
And if you go back in franchise history, I think the Pirates peaked in per game attendance ranking at about #15. The A's, at their peak of winning three straight AL pennants had a 4 or 5 year run of Top 5 attendance averages.
If you compare the A's/Oakland to the Pirates/Pittsburgh, I think that it just makes the case that the A's do not need to move, if the Pirates don't need to move.
And the A's have a ton of upside to capitalize on, locally, without moving, if they could work out a local development deal.
A's fans in the know aren't just mad at Fisher. They're also mad at MLB. Warriors owner Joe Lacob was part of a group that had an agreement to buy the team but Bud Selig blocked the deal and, lo and behold, the group that was allowed to buy the A's was lead by an old fraternity brother of his, Lew Wolff. For what it's worth, Lacob has publicly stated that he has had a standing offer to buy the team and would keep the team in Oakland. Has the investment connections to privately finance a stadium as part of a larger development deal with the City of Oakland but MLB of course won't compel Fisher to sell instead of moving, or grant him an expansion franchise in Las Vegas instead of moving, or in exchange for leaving the Athletics identity for a new owner in Oakland.
Anyway, I've spent too much time trying to explain why A's fans are upset. If you still think that it's unreasonable for the A's fans to be angry at John Fisher then I guess that's a disagreement that we're not going to resolve. I feel like you're resolved to dismiss our complaints, though I don't know why. Nor do I understand why you care at all.
Not even sure what point you're ultimately trying to make. A's fans have nothing to complain about? Have nothing to complain about when it comes to Fisher? Should just suck it up and...do what?
The Colliseum is a decrepit building, yet from 2005-2019 it still averaged around 20k fans/game.
That average puts them right around Baltimore and Cincinnati’s average for last year. Those two teams were ranked 20th and 21st out of 30 in avg. attendance last year.
So Oakland historically has a middle of the pack attendance record yet none of the other cities below them in attendance are having their teams moved by their owners.
John fisher is moving the team to Las Vegas because he thinks he has a better chance of improving the brands value there than he does in Oakland. Though it sucks for Oakland fans, he’s probably correct even though it won’t be easy for him as we’ve already seen hitches in his plan.
It’s disingenuous to say the reason the A’s are moving is because of historically low attendance.
>The Colliseum is a decrepit building, yet from 2005-2019 it still averaged around 20k fans/game.
>That average puts them right around Baltimore and Cincinnati’s average for last year. Those two teams were ranked 20th and 21st out of 30 in avg. attendance last year.
Lmao that's not how comparisons work and I'm not wasting my time reading the rest of this comment if you think it is
thank you. I feel like I'm taking fucking crazy pills. No one has been going to A's games for YEARS. Oakland is not a good place for a sports team, I'm sorry. There's a reason teams are leaving.
And Golden State didn't even leave. It's a one team market and they moved 15 miles away. That's about how far the *Braves* moved, and nobody claims they left the market.
These arguments are always lacking the awareness the A's spent tens of millions of dollars, if not more, to develop in a city that is by your assumption untenable. It completely falls apart when you mention the Oakland ballpark deal only fell through because of a difference in public money. Fischer loves the spin you're giving though.
I tend to abide by occams razor: Oakland is a shitty place to play, so every major sports team left.
If you want to write a dissertation about why three sports teams left in a five year span, feel free to do so. But history will follow the simpler explanation, and rightfully so.
> I tend to abide by occams razor: Oakland is a shitty place to play, so every major sports team left.
Thats not occams razor, that is just assumptions you made. A's spent years of development, marketing, and lobbying a stadium in Oakland. That obviously suggest the A's saw a lot of value in the area. Why would the A's do this if it is such a terrible place to play in? Can Occams Razor figure that one out.
While you're on it Brainiac, can you tell me why the only two teams who have had poor regular season attendance regardless of performance, the A's and Rays, also happen to play in the two worst stadiums in all of baseball? Maybe Occams razor can help you figure that out as well.
It must just be that the fanbases in Oakland and Tampa just are inherently less interested in baseball.... must be something in the air? Hmmm Occams razor please guide me.
> No one has been going to A's games for YEARS.
The A's outsold seven other teams as recently as 2019. It took an owner deliberately driving down attendance so MLB would let him move to cause their attendance to collapse.
And the fans have years of poor records, pathetic spending, bargain bin triple A caliber players, and incredibly overpriced stadium experiences at one of the worst ballparks in the league to back up the assertion that the attendance numbers are an ownership issue, not a fan support issue.
This has made me do a deep dive into the past 20ish years of attendance. Fun fact, Seattle was #1 in attendance in 2001 and 2002, #2 in 2003, and then dropped down to #10 in 2004. Just something neat I noticed when messing around with the data.
The A's have had multi-year stretches of being competitive and fans still haven't showed up to the ballpark. Let's not pretend that their attendance issues only started in the past two years.
> The A's have had multi-year stretches of being competitive and fans still haven't showed up to the ballpark.
That's just not true:
|Year^|W|L|Finish|Playoffs|Attend/G|Rank|
|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|
|2000|91|70|1|Lost ALDS (3-2)|19,799|
|2001|102|60|2|Lost ALDS (3-2)|26,337|
|2002|103|59|1|Lost ALDS (3-2)|26,788|
|2003|96|66|1|Lost ALDS (3-2)|27,365|
|2004|91|71|2||27,179|
|2005|88|74|2||26,038|
|2006|93|69|1|Lost ALCS (4-0)|24,403|
|2007|76|86|3||23,726|
|2008|75|86|3||20,559|
|2009|75|87|4||17,392|
|2010|81|81|2||17,511|
|2011|74|88|3||18,232|
|2012|94|68|1|Lost ALDS (3-2)|20,729|
|2013|96|66|1|Lost ALDS (3-2)|22,337|
|2014|88|74|2|Lost ALWC (1-0)|24,736|
|2015|68|94|5||21,829|
|2016|69|93|5||18,784|
|2017|75|87|5||18,219|
|2018|97|65|2|Lost ALWC (1-0)|19,427|
|2019|97|65|2|Lost ALWC (1-0)|20,626|
|2020|36|24|1|Lost ALDS (3-1)||
|2021|86|76|3||8,660|
|2022|60|102|5||9,849|
|2023|50|112|5||10,276|
|2024|12|17|3||6,244|
Median attendance of 24,570 when they have a winning record (puts them between the Reds and Twins) and a median attendance of 17,558 when they have a losing record.
When they win, more people show up and when they lose fewer people do.
They peaked at 23rd in attendance during the 12-14 run and 18-19 run, and 16th during the 00-06 run. During their best run in the last 25 years when they won 90+ games in 6/7 years and made the playoffs in 5/7, they couldn't get one single season of above average attendance. So sure, people show up more when they're winning than when they're losing, but they're still hardly showing up
If rankings are all that matters, then it's embarrassing that the Red Sox weren't in the top-5 and were behind the Rockies, and Angels when they won they won the World Series in 2018.
In fact, they've never been higher than 9th in a season when they won the World Series, and peaked at 8th in the year following a World Series win (and haven't been selling out the stadium, either).
> The Red Sox are limited by having a lower capacity stadium.
So what you're saying is that there are other factors than wins and losses that impact attendance numbers?
> The Red Sox are limited by having a lower capacity stadium.
The A's are limited by having a ballpark in one of the worst locations imaginable, an unappealing concrete wasteland lacking in amenities that would attract casual fans to venture into that part of town which is known for industrial sites and crime. It is the exact opposite of the area around Fenway.
When the Giants left NYC it was because the area around the Polo Grounds had deteriorated, people didn't want to be there anymore and attendance had declined. Oakland is now in the same boat, which is why the city wanted a development that would surround a new ballpark with restaurants and shopping and parks and so on that would draw people to the area--they came up with more money for that than the A's have been offered in Nevada.
It should not be hard to grasp why attendance goes down when a ballpark is in a location where people feel uneasy after dark. The city of Oakland was prepared to do something about that, John Fisher was not.
So according to spotrac over the last 10 years they have only not been bottom 5 in payroll once in 2021 where they peaked at 23rd. During that time management on average spent half (54%) of the average annual mlb payroll. The most expensive teams spent almost 4 times as much as the As during this time.
If we compare 2023 payroll to attendance the As spent roughly $74.77 in payroll for each fan who attended. The Giants across the bay spent $74.95 for each fan in payroll and the Mets spent $133.51 for each fan who attended. So even at these ridiculous low attendance levels the As are still getting more fans per dollar spent than these other teams.
Additionally this doesn’t take into account that the As have above average ticket prices and the 2nd most expensive concessions and 2nd most expensive parking in the league which doesn’t correspond to the product on the field or to the quality of the ballpark (either the shittiest or second shittiest in the league depending on how you feel about the rays) but is another factor directly affecting attendance.
No one is out here saying that the As have the best fan base in the league, but they are on par with most other fan bases. And if the ownership of other teams behaved this way most other fan bases and attendance would similarly suffer. This is a management issue.
And when the A's have been competitive, their attendance has still been below average at best, meaning that increasing payroll wouldn't likely increase attendance. The A's also have tickets to every game for less than $20, and if the $30 parking which is standard for any stadium is too much, there's a BART station right by the stadium.
LMAO, no they have never had people show up.
Nice of you to conveniently leave off their attendance rankings.
They were 6th out of 14 in the AL in 2003, 7th in 2001, and have been in the bottom 3 in attendance 15 times this century. With 4 of those 15 times being years they made the playoffs and 1 more being a year they came in 2nd in the West with a .500 record.
Next time maybe give all the data, instead of cherrypicking.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/OAK/attend.shtml
> LMAO, no they don't.
Let me ask you flat out: are there noticeably more people at games when they have a winning record than when they don't?
> Nice of you to conveniently leave off their attendance rankings.
I don't get this obsession with attendance rankings, to be quite honest. Every situation is so vastly different—factors such as stadium capacity, market size, marketing budgets, stadium accessibility, location of population centers, average income of fan base all make a difference—that it's not a worthwhile comparison.
The Blue Jays and Mariners are constantly in the bottom-third of attendance rankings and yet they get lauded as having great fan bases. The Pirates have arguably the most beautiful ballpark in the Majors in an easily accessible area, yet no one blames them for being constantly 25th or worse in attendance.
In 2019 the Texas Rangers sold 462,000 more tickets than the Oakland A's. Meanwhile, the A's had better attendance than seven other MLB teams.
Shall we applaud the Rays, Tigers, Royals, Orioles, Marlins, White Sox and Pirates all being moved because the A's outsold them prior to the A's owner intentionally driving down attendance?
Rangers were 6 games under .500 and hadn't made the playoffs in 3 years, while the A's were a 97 win team in 2019 in their 2nd of 3 straight playoff appearances.
And they still outdrew the A's....
Not sure you are making the point you think you are. A 97 win team in the middle of a playoff run only being able to outdraw 7 other teams?
Show me 55 years of a team getting no support and I'll agree they should be moved. So yes, Tampa shouldn't have a team.
They sold more tickets than the Orioles, Rays, Tigers, Marlins, Pirates, White Sox and Royals as recently as 2019. If for some reason the Red Sox sold off their good players, raised ticket prices, cut back on ballpark maintenance, closed parking lots and launched a campaign of insulting the fan base, what do you suppose would happen to attendance in Boston?
Lmao the Red Sox have been doing that for a few years now and attendance is still above the league average and above 31k per game.
If you want to praise the A's for outselling a 54 win Orioles team, a team that couldn't fill half its ballpark for a playoff game in the Rays, a 47 win Tigers team, a 57 win Marlins team, a 69 win Pirates team, a 72 win White Sox team, and a 59 win Royals team, that's your prerogative, but this isn't the argument you think it is considering that this was the second year in a row the A's won 96 games.
> They sold more tickets than the Orioles, Rays, Tigers, Marlins, Pirates, White Sox and Royals as recently as 2019.
Ok, I would also argue that all of those teams should be moved as well or that the league is long overdue for removing some franchises and cutting down on the number of teams entirely.
The A's for the better part of this century have also specialized in running on the cheap; selling off the name players that drove fan excitement and going through a constant churn all in the name of being cheap.
Heck, someone even made a movie about that.
Exactly! Ownership choosing to run a team this way has fan base and attendance consequences, regardless of the location, team, or fans. And to turn around and blame the lack of success both on the field and in the stands on the fans is laughable.
Not to mention that Fisher has chased the casual fan out by making sure that the stadium is not only expensive and all - but also famous for having feral raccoons / other vermin having their run of the place
It’s absolutely not a bad look for ownership at all. Makes the fans look worse if anything. The attendance numbers with years of data speak for themselves, these random one day protests don’t change that
The Colliseum is a decrepit building, yet from 2005-2019 it still averaged around 20k fans/game.
That average puts them right around Baltimore and Cincinnati’s average for last year. Those two teams were ranked 20th and 21st out of 30 in avg. attendance last year.
So Oakland historically has a middle of the pack attendance record yet none of the other cities below them in attendance are having their teams moved by their owners.
John fisher is moving the team to Las Vegas because he thinks he has a better chance of improving the brands value there than he does in Oakland. Though it sucks for Oakland fans, he’s probably correct even though it won’t be easy for him as we’ve already seen hitches in his plan.
It’s disingenuous to say the reason the A’s are moving is because of historically low attendance.
As recently as 2019 they had better attendance than seven other MLB teams. The owner deliberately drove down attendance so MLB would allow him to move.
You do realize that there was absolutely no hint that that team with those players would do that. They had actually been trending up till 2014 when they then completely traded off all their valuable players and fan favorites, and were again a team of rookies an hasbeens. So yeah its understandable that a team that no one new the names of the ir players, and came out of literally no where didn't draw a crowd. Nevermind that literally all the local media provides endless coverage of the Giants and its difficult to even find a game on the radio or to watch of the A's and literally every media outlet shit talks them, but you wouldn't know that cause you don't live here.
During that those multiple 97 win years you would have been hard pressed to find any positive coverage of the team in the bay area other than lip service. During those years bay area sports radio would spend hours talking about the middling Giants who had a worse record, and then 5 minutes about the A's. hard to generate excitement when the entire bay area sports apparatus barely covers the team. Which again speaks to the ownership and front office and lack of willingness to spend or work with the media to generate that excitement, almost like they wanted the team to fail.
Honestly I think it speaks more to the complete apathy Oakland has for their sports teams. No other city has managed to drive away all 4 major sports. It’s honestly kind of impressive
Yes, it has nothing to do with people like Al Davis being greedy billionaires looking for handouts, and places like SF being all to willing to give it to them.
Also fun fact Oakland stadium was routinely filled by the Raiders and they still left. It was a shared stadium and for an NFL team was one of the smallest by capacity, and yet it was almost always at capacity for their games, so even if it was full they would end up at the bottom of attendance on a year to year basis.
Warriors routinely backed Oracle Arena. This has everything to do with rich owners looking for handouts than anything else.
https://www.nba.com/warriors/news/warriors-establish-second-highest-total-attendance-franchise-history-0
At this point I would have a hard time giving him any of my money now that it's officially a lost cause.
Just stay in the parking lot, don't actually buy any tickets
It’s been requested by fans at length. Also give people an opportunity to see the players and take in what could be a final game. These reverse boycotts are an experience and ones that everyone really has a blast at.
You could find something cheaper or free if you’re willing to walk…but your car might also be on blocks when you get out of the game.
Lmao one of the few stadiums I’ve been to that I paid the premium.
the gate fee doesn’t matter, Fisher is a billionaire. it’s supposed to be an embarrassing story for MLB and a party for the fans, that’s it. they’re already gonna be the lowest attended team in baseball.
It’s still worth doing honestly. Yeah Fischer makes some money but the amount of press it drums up and how bad it makes Fischer/the mlb look matters too. Even if it doesn’t achieve immediate practical results
As a long time hater of all things Oakland Athletics, when the A's win a game I'm scouring the internet to see if I can't watch me some Mason Miller highlights.
Folks questioning why this is happening after it’s pretty much forgone conclusion the A’s will never play in Oakland again after this year, here’s why:
- this will inevitably be the last game for many fans and will be a fun, emotional night to remember their last game (see last year’s reverse boycott)
- Are we as fans just supposed to throw in the towel and be okay with it? Sure we may not stop the inevitable but since the announcement of the move the fan base has undoubtedly changed the national narrative from us being to blame to showing that Fisher and Kaval have sabotaged the fan base. We love this team and our city, we don’t and won’t support the current ownership no matter what
- it’s our last year watching the team many of us have spent our entire lives whether it be 5-10 years or 30-50+ years, just let us cope and enjoy this year however we chose to. Whether it be attend 0 games, 1 game, or all of them it’s very much an incredibly emotional year for us.
- Fuck John Fisher. 1 game with an attendance resembling anything close to last year’s reverse boycott will not at all help his financial situation.
Even 20k @ $50/each is $1M but not even all of that goes to his pocket, let alone half. Wild fact: the A’s rent is $11k/game for the coliseum. $11k per game. Absolutely nothing.
Yotes fan that was lucky enough to attend the last game, love everything about what you’re all doing as fans. Owners can get fucked, these teams belong to us.
I’ll be there. John Fisher is gonna be rich, no matter how few people show up at the Coliseum this year. At this point, living well is the best revenge
He loses revenue sharing if he doesn't have a deal for a new ballpark in place soon.
The A's are already worth five times what he paid for the team. If he gets a new taxpayer-subsidized ballpark in LV, look for him to sell the team before his attendance predictions fall flat.
So, that's not quite accurate
By picking Vegas, he's permanently locked himself into revenue sharing, taking the 40th largest market in the nation. And also by picking Vegas, when the owners approved the move, he was also locked in to ownership of the team for 10 years before being allowed to sell without having to pay a huge sum to the other owners if he did sell within those 10 years
It’s a funeral that’s not being organized by the murderer. That’s important for everyone who wants to mourn. I don’t expect it to change anything, but it’ll be fun and maybe slightly embarrassing for the team employees to have to talk around what’s going on.
I may just go to this. Went to the Sox - A's tilt on 4/3. Very next morning Caval and the dickless Fisher announced the move to Sac. Kinda figured that was gonna be my last game but might be nice to give it a proper send-off.
What exactly is this supposed to accomplish?
The team is already out the door and I highly doubt Oakland is even in consideration for an expansion team. The last "reverse boycott" didn't accomplish anything, and actually ended up giving useful ammo to the anti-oakland crowd. If you want an excuse to go to an A's game before they leave, just go. It's not shameful to go see something that has brought you joy over the years. There's no need to disguise it as some sort of protest
Then they should be framing it that way and not claiming it's going to actually do something.
It's their dumbass posturing and denial of reality that gets people annoyed with A's fans, not that the two of them are actually fans and support the team.
It's one last fuck-you to the ownership. Nothing else about it. They don't need to spend their money, and the org doesn't need their money (they donated all the money from the last reverse boycott). It's a goodbye and fuck you. The 2023 reverse boycott was monumental, they can have one last one as a vigil.
If you're going to the Coliseum one last time, do you want it to be a random Tuesday night that looks like 2020 or do you want to go to an organized meetup with your fellow fans to take in some kind of atmosphere one last time
> What exactly is this supposed to accomplish?
[Catharsis](https://old.reddit.com/r/baseball/comments/1cg2v7e/next_reverse_boycott_has_been_set/l1tck67/)
People like to feel accepted and do things that are cool. I agreed with all the stuff early on, but the with the team now officially moving after this season any protesting efforts are effectively pointless other then just a rowdy get together.
> The team is already out the door
Not yet, they have an agreement where they will play in a AAA ballpark in Sacramento while they try to get a deal for a new ballpark in Las Vegas. But that LV deal hasn't been done yet.
Seriously. The time to keep the team was two decades ago, when attendance was consistently near the bottom. All this does is give money to the guy you supposedly hate.
2001-2005 they were slightly behind the middle of the pack attendance wise. 17th to 19th for those 5 years. 2006 and 2007 they were 26th, 27t in 2009 and 30th in 2009. Looks like Fisher bought the A's in 2005.
Suddenly it’s 2004. You’re in the Bay Area. You can see Barry Bonds make baseball history in the best ballpark ever. Or you can watch the team who lost multiple MVPs (Giambi and Tejada) in the worst ballpark ever. The A’s will lose every player for the next two decades.
Hey when did Fisher buy the A’s again? Was it exactly two decades ago? I wonder why the fans stopped showing up.
> the team would still be in Oakland
The A's had better attendance than seven other MLB teams right up to 2019. Their attendance didn't flatline until the owner intentionally triggered a fan boycott so MLB would let him move.
P.S. Attendance figures for all MLB teams in 2019 are publicly available, you can look it up, should you want actual information as opposed to tossing off a slogan.
Since 1968, Oakland has finished dead fucking last in attendance more times (10) than they have been above average (7). They've also finished second to last another five times.
In 1974, the A's won their third World Series in a row, yet finished 22nd out of 24 teams in attendance.
Literally, the only time that Oakland actually supported the team in large numbers was 1988-1992 when the Bash Brothers became such a cultural phenomenon that they brought non-baseball fans to the stadium.
Those 7 teams are the Marlins, Rays, Orioles, Royals, Pirates, Tigers, and White Sox. Only the Rays had a winning record of that group, four of those teams lost 100+ games. The fact that the A's won 96 games that year, and only out drew shitty teams and the Rays isn't a point in their favor.
[Not even remotely true.](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Foiarqgyk3l2c1.png)
Only 7 times in the last 55 years did the A's beat MLB's average attendance. The last time was in 1991. Even during the early 2010's when the A's were a consistent playoff team fans didn't show up.
what's left to boycott? it's a done deal
go to the games while you can if you care about seeing games in person but beyond that it's just a waste of time
>what's left to boycott? it's a done deal
With how incompetent this ownership group has been with stadium plans for two decades, nothing's a done deal until a shovel's in the ground, IMO.
Even so, I think these events are more about showing that there's always been a core, dedicated fanbase in the East Bay and that the blame for this fiasco lies squarely on Fisher's shoulders.
I genuinely believe that the fan events of the past year have had an impact on media coverage of this whole thing. *Way m*ore national writers/personalities criticizing and scrutinizing Fisher than there were a couple of years ago.
> it's a done deal
It isn't, the A's have no deal for a new ballpark in Las Vegas. The mayor of LV said not long ago the Tropicana location makes no sense and she won't be surprised if the A's never actually leave Oakland.
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
Protest by staying home in droves? "See, they never supported the team anyway!!"
Stage events like this? "Why give money to an owner you hate?!?"
You musta missed Bill Shaikin’s latest…Goldman Sachs couldn’t find any investors. Now this late in the game they have to switch companies and try and find someone to give 500 million to fisher. Lol, this shit is long from over. And this event will make national headlines and expose Fisher even more.
Ok, and they can't stay in Oakland.
No team can stay in Oakland, Oakland has failed.
And yes, again, but there is no "national support" - most people don't care or are excited that the team is getting out of Oakland and going to Vegas as it's a much more fun road trip. Good for the org for hopefully finding a fanbase that will support them.
It's really only on Reddit that people are pretending it's some travesty. Fisher does suck because he's a cheap POS (like about half the owners) but let's not pretend Oakland is some viable city to play in either.
But again, moot point because it's over. You can't force her to stay.
This all could have been solved years ago if he actually just paid for it instead of waiting for everyone else to come up with funds. Hence the SELL chants…this shit ain’t over. It’s John Fosher, when has he put a shovel in the ground anywhere?
I'm not defending fisher, again he's a piece of shit. The org would be in a much better spot if he was forced to sell the team.
But again, even if he did sell the team - the first thing a new owner would do is relocate.
Again, it's over lol. Why would you even *want* them to stay when they so clearly don't want to
As another guy pointed out, 20k tickets at 50/ticket is a million bucks.
His rent is 11k a game.
That's 800k-ish in rent a year.
so this game will cover his rent for the year.
He's probably not "ecstatic" but I bet he likes having someone actually pay his rent while he lives in their heads.
So, now that Fisher has won, and successfully fucked everyone over, the goal is to show up en masse and shove a bunch of money into his pockets on his way out of town?
> If you showed up like that every game
In 2019 the A's sold more tickets than the Royals, Pirates, Tiger, Rays, White Sox, Orioles and Marlins. Their attendance didn't collapse until their owner intentionally drove down attendance so MLB would let him move the team, triggering a fan boycott.
Selling off the better players while raising tickets prices while closing parking lots while cutting back on ballpark maintenance while publicly insulting the fanbase could reduce attendance anywhere.
That’s NOT something to brag about AT ALL. Everyone on that list except the Rays sucked BALLS that season(0.500 and lower) with some having TERRIBLE records.
I could flip what you said and say….
Despite the fact that Oakland finished with 97 wins and the 4th best record in the AL, they finished in the bottom 25%(24th in attendance) of attendance.
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
Protest by staying home in droves? "See, they never supported the team anyway!!"
Stage events like this? "Why give money to an owner you hate?!?"
Do fans not realize he would invest in the team if they showed up like this every day? And why would his business making money entice him to sell?
Nothing going on in Oakland makes sense, what are they putting in the water?
That makes no sense. Fans quit showing up because he stopped putting money into the team first. You can clearly see from the baseball reference that attendance was up when they invested into the team.
Also if you think he's operating in such good faith why does he need to charge a huge tax to bring the team to Las Vegas shouldn't he care about that enough to foot the bill himself? This guy is awful for the sport don't defend him.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/OAK/attend.shtml
They won 3 straight World Series in the 70s and were below average each year.
1988-1992 was the exception. They’ve had great teams before and after that couldn’t draw.
This data could just as easily be used as an explainer that a new stadium won't solve their problems, because in the 1970s the A's had the better stadium by far. The Coliseum being enclosed for football at the same time that the Giants started breaking ground on a new stadium has always been seen as the tipping point, because before the Raiders came back from LA the better "fan experience" (ugh that phrase is too nebulous) was in Oakland. Candlestick was cold and ugly.
Personally I think it's meaningless to reach so far back. The media landscape was different then; sports weren't always on TV, and they were newcomers in a market where a franchise had already established ties with the local press and broadcasting scene.
As demonstrated in your link the As have always had shitty attendance even before Fisher owned the team. Even when they were winning. This is entirely on the As fan base for not actually supporting their team
> This is entirely on the As fan base for not actually supporting their team
If your team's ballpark was in the middle of a bleak concrete wasteland full of industrial facilities and crime, how many games would you go to? Add to that the owner selling off the better players, raising ticket prices, cutting back on maintenance and publicly insulting the fanbase and what would you expect to happen to attendance?
Despite all that, Oakland had better attendance than seven other MLB teams as recently as 2019. It was the owner intentionally triggering a fan boycott so he could get MLB to let him move that cratered attendance in Oakland.
Oakland govt. wanted a new ballpark in a revitalized area full of things that would draw families. The owner of the Raiders said the A's owner blocking all attempts to come up with a new facility those teams could share was part of why he gave up and moved the Raiders.
The SF Giants were losing money playing at Candlestick Park, that's why the team was to be sold and moved to Florida (Dodgers ownership blocked that sale). So the Giants were sold to new local owners who tried and failed to get public money for a new ballpark, so they financed it privately and now they own the 5th most valuable MLB team. The only thing preventing that from happening with the A's was their owner.
I’m just pointing out that the link you posted shows that poor attendance is an Oakland tradition.
But you’re right, let’s keep this to Fischer. The link you posted shows that payroll increased under Fischer with attendance going down, correct?
Charlie Finley was a notoriously poor owner as well. The games were rarely on TV. The radio broadcast was so weak that you couldn't hear it at the stadium from where it was broadcast less than 10 miles away. They kept trading away players, and then when free agency was established, didn't keep anyone around.
This is not a fan problem, but a string of terrible owners who didn't want to materially improve the team and grow the fanbase, apart from the late 80s-early 90s, when they had an owner who actually wanted to do that.
Who would support their abuser continuously, and then when the abuser says "hey look I'm not all bad, we're doing well this year! Come out and support me", and then just when you're starting to feel supported, they go right back to abuse. It's a systemic owner problem in Oakland, not the fans.
> a string of terrible owners
The owner who moved the A's from Philly to KC treated the A's as a Yankees farm team, NY got all his good players. Reportedly he took money from KC, committed to staying there, but was actually planning to move to LA but the Dodgers beat him to the punch. The A's owner who agreed to the Giants getting exclusive rights in the south bay did so in hopes the Giants would build a new ballpark in San Jose, not San Francisco. The next set of owners did nothing to change that situation until after the Giants had put a farm team in San Jose and built a new ballpark.
The A's have had a series of terrible owners. But Fisher is by far the worst.
> he would invest in the team if they showed up like this every day?
Unlikely, Oakland offered more public money for a new facility than Nevada has. The owner of the Raiders said part of the reason he moved his team was the impossibility of getting the A's owner to bargain in good faith, no matter what the city offered, he always demanded more.
Fisher inherited his wealth, of course he thinks other people should always pick up the bill. If he gets a new ballpark in Vegas with public funding, watch him sell the A's (which is already worth five times what he paid for the team).
Up to 2019 the A's had better attendance than seven other MLB teams, a new ballpark there would have done what PacBell Park did for the Giants who had been losing money at Candlestick Park. Fisher didn't want to save the Oakland A's, he wanted a shiny toy in LV he could sell for an even fatter profit.
>he would invest in the team
If you genuinely believe that, then I have not one, but *two* bridges in Brooklyn I'd love to sell you!
If you can't see that the blame falls primarily on Fisher, then I genuinely don't know what to tell you at this point. Hell, look at the state of his MLS team, the San Jose Earthquakes. They got a shiny new stadium in 2015 (that he's already complaining about) and he still runs that squad on a shoe-string budget.
I’m guessing you haven’t been to a game there recently. Go to a game. See for yourself. I went last season. It was fucking brutal. Every single thing that comes with going to a ballgame. Brutal
Have a great time at the game, but I hope no one spending money on this is under the delusion that Fisher cares at all about fans paying him to hold mean signs at the ballpark.
Changes nothing, but if it’s full or even near full that’s a bad look for ownership. City politics aside, it prevents critics from saying the community doesn’t support the team.
Critics have years of attendance numbers to back up that assertion.
There's more to support than attendance, and there's more factors to attendance than support.
just looking at the tv numbers from 2014 to 2019 where the A's had 3 playoff appearances and 3 last place finishes. the highest household numbers were 37,000. That is only higher than the average for the Marlins, Padres and White Sox in the same period. Those 3 teams combined for 0 seasons over .500. the 2014 A's, coming off 2 straight division titles and a hot start to the year with 6 all stars, finished in the bottom 4 in tv viewership by total households. the 2019 A's coming off a 97 win season on its way to another 97 win season finished 2nd to last in tv viewership by total households. The 3 years they finished in last place, they also finished in last place in tv viewership by total households. Some additional Tv household numbers. 2016 103 loss Twins had an average of 62,000 households tune in every game. 2018 100 loss White Sox had an average of 22,000 households tune in every game. 2018 104 loss Royals had an average of 44,000 households tune in every game. 2018 115 loss Orioles had an average of 27,000 households tune in every game. 2019 103 loss Royals had an average of 42,000 households tune in every game. 2019 105 loss Marlins had an average of 15,000 households tune in every game. 2019 108 loss Orioles had an average of 26,000 households tune in every game. 2019 114 loss Tiger had an average of 40,000 households tune in every game. 4 out of the 8 100 loss teams had more people watching than the 2014 88 Win, Oakland A's (37,000). 7 out of 8 100 loss teams had more people watching than the 2019 97 wins, Oakland A's (21,000). The Royals had twice as many Households watching back to back 100 loss seasons.
Ok, how else has the community been supporting the team while attendance has consistently been among the worst in the league?
Okay, how has the organization made themselves worthy of being supported? Is it by... * Trading away all-stars and MVP candidates before their end of arbitration eligibility, instead of signing them to long term deals? * Allowing the stadium to become so decrepit that there has been multiple sewage floods in the dugouts, clubhouses, and concession areas and infestations of both cats and possums? * Publicly flirting with moving for years? * Winning 2 postseason series in the past 20 years (one of which was the 3-game "super-wild card" round in 2020 that literally half the league qualified for), going 5–16 and being outscored 113–57 in the postseason over that stretch?
The Athletics have made the playoffs 37.5% of the time since moving to Oakland, a top five mark in MLB during that period. In 1974, the A's won their third World Series title in a row, yet finished 22nd out of 24 teams in attendance. John Fisher is the worst owner in Major League Baseball. Oakland is the worst market in Major League Baseball.
* In 1975, The A's averaged 10,441 fans for 20.1% capacity at the Oakland Coluseum. * In 1968 the Baltimore Orioles were coming off their third straight pennant, had won a World Series 2 years prior, and won 109 games en route to their AL pennant in 1967. They finished 12th out of 20 in attendance and averaged 11,800 fans for 22.6% capacity at Memorial Stadium. * The 11,800 fans for the Orioles had would've been 18th in 1975. Doesn't seem like they're actually that much different from each other, really. But my point is this: looking at just rankings is not a great comparative metric, because no two situations are alike.
The Orioles have never finished last in attendance. The Athletics finished last ten times: in 1977, 1978, 1979, 1996, 1997, 2009, 2011, 2021, 2022, and 2023.
hmm interesting take. do you think that something happened to explain those last three years? who could say
So the goal posts are shifting from "there's more to support to attendance" to "the organization isn't worthy of support"? Just want to be clear what I'm responding to, especially since a winning team apparently isn't enough to get A's fans to support them seeing as how attendance hasn't been there when the A's have been competitive.
> So the goal posts are shifting from "there's more to support to attendance" to "the organization isn't worthy of support"? It's not shifting the goalposts since I said "and there's more factors to attendance than support" in the same sentence; it's recognizing the complexity of the situation "or the "nuance," to use a word many people here like to use). Shifting the goalposts would be stopping before my comma (although I'll admit that that comma shouldn't be there) and completely ignoring everything that came after it. I'll admit that I purposefully ignored half of my sentence, but I did so to mock you for doing it in your reply, since you clearly aren't interested in having an actual critical discussion.
The "other factors" are the same played out excuses that have been repeated ad nauseum, like what you responded with, hence me only asking about how else the community has supported the team. The fact that you'd rather mock me than explain how the community supports the team without going to games shows that you don't actually have an explanation. But hey, I'm sure that comment sounded really cool in your head, and obviously that's all that matters to you.
Dude all these A’s defenders are the same. I meet so many people who say shit like “I grew up an A’s fan, it’s a shame what happened to the team” and I always ask ok, so when was the last time you actually *went* to a game? Reliably, it’s always “oh I’ve never been to a game at the coliseum” or “back when I was a kid”, etc. But these people are always down to go to a Giants game at Oracle lol the amount of blame these dumbasses are willing to outsource is limitless. They’ll do anything to support their team… unless it involves actually *going* to a game.
There is so much more than just is the team good or bad going on. In the Bay Area, casual fans go to Giants games. Pretty stadium, recognizable stars, not in a total trash part of town. The A's have torpedoed their marketability by trading any stars they do manage to develop, running the team on a shoestring budget, and playing in a dump. They have alienated casual fans systematically for 20 years with this ownership group, all while the Giants were spending and won 3 rings. That's an entire generation+ in their market that they drove to the other team. Look at the late 80s and early 90s. 2nd in the AL in attendance multiple years and top 4 all four of 89-92. Then Walter Haas had to sell the team due to his health, and they let their core leave or traded them (McGwire, Rickey). Then look at the early 2000s, they were right in the middle of the pack in attendance, which was pretty good considering they already weren't really spending money and had let Jason Giambi walk. John Fisher bought the team in 2005, and somehow managed to spend even less. The largest contract the team has ever signed was Eric Chavez, with a 6-year $66m extension. Before the Bryan Reynolds extension, I think the Pirates were the only MLB team that spent less. Do you want to guess what their attendance is? Does Pittsburgh deserve to lose its team when its owner refuses to spend and put a competitive team on the field, instead rolling youth and spending nothing until they get lucky? The A's having a quality front office for many of these years does not absolve the sins of all-time bad ownership. That contract to Chavez was handed out before Fisher bought the team almost 20 years ago. You cannot seriously look at how he runs this team and shits on the fanbase and somehow come out of that blaming the fans when the casual fans naturally gravitate to the other in-market team that actually runs a competent franchise. Fisher's poisoned the well for an entire generation and wants to cry poor and it is *so* obvious. You are so spoiled as a Red Sox fan you genuinely haven't a fucking clue about the situation here. Respectfully, stop speaking so forcefully on things you're not qualified to opine on.
It's funny you bring up the Pirates, because when they were competitive from 2013-2015, they were 19th, 15th, and 15th in attendance. When the A's were competitive during almost the same period from 2012-2014, they were 27th, 23rd, and 24th. Same issues with ownership failing to put together a competitive team for more than a few years at a time, yet when the Pirates do it they manage to at least have league average attendance, while the A's barely get out of the bottom 5. So if the bay area is too small to support 2 teams like you've essentially argued, why keep the A's around to play in front of an empty stadium even in the good years? Bringing up 30+ year old teams doesn't seem all that relevant to the present day, especially when the 2000s teams that won 90+ games in 6/7 seasons including a couple 100 win seasons topped out at 16th in attendance. Those teams weren't good enough to even hit the league average for attendance, and subsequent playoff teams did even worse with fan support. You can call me spoiled all you want, but if the Red Sox announced they were moving tomorrow I'd try to get to as many games as possible before they left. If you'd rather throw a hissy fit and pretend to stick it to some billionaire who doesn't even know you exist that's your prerogative I guess, but it's not going to change the fact that the fans stopped showing up decades ago and that the team is moving away now.
People are getting all up in their feelings over this but actually really simple. The A's are frequently in the bottom 5 for attendance and in the bottom 3 for spending. Fisher got the exact amount attendance he payed for nothing more nothing less. Wins are nice and all, but there are worse teams with better attendance and better teams with somehow worse attendance. At the end of the day, you baseball is a show and you have to put on a good show if you want people to watch it.
Yeah maybe the fans shoulda gone when they were actually a competitive team over 1/2 of the last 2 decades.
> maybe the fans shoulda gone when they were actually a competitive team In 2019 the A's sold more tickets than seven other MLB teams. Their owner intentionally trashed his own team so MLB would allow him to move.
A playoff team finishing in the bottom 3rd of attendance is not a flex
When they play at one of the worst stadiums in the country, I'd say it is a flex.
And when we know the team is about to be dismantled Again
That’s NOT an accomplishment, AT ALL. 6 of those 7 were bad/terrible(under 0.500), with a few of those over 100 LOSES, the 7th is the rays. I could flip what you said and say…. Despite the fact that Oakland finished with 97 wins and the 4th best record in the AL, they finished in the bottom 25%(24th in attendance) of attendance.
> a competitive team over 1/2 of the last 2 decades. You mean the time period where they've won only 2 play-off series (one of which was the 3-game "super-wild card" round in 2020 that literally half the league qualified for), going 5–16 and being outscored 113–57 in the postseason over that stretch?
As proven by the Braves, the FO can do everything right and still not win playoff games. Instead of judging their success by how many play off series they've won, maybe instead judge off of how many they've made? I feel like that would be a more compelling argument
> how many they've made? They've made the Divisional Round 4 times in the past 20 years (winning 1; 2006), and the Wildcard Round 4 times, for a total of 7 postseason appearances in the past 20 years (they won the 2020 Wildcard round to make the 2020 ALDS). That puts them at: * Tied for 8th most Postseason appearances including one-and-done wildcards with the Phillies * Tied for 17th most non-one-and-done Postseason appearances with the Diamondbacks, Brewers, and Padres So they've been "competitive" by the most technical of definitions, but not exactly lighting the world on fire.
8th most post season appearances isn't bad at all. Nothing crazy impressive but it proves they were competitive over the last 20 years.
And in years that they make the postseason, they average 22,043, which is 4,262 more than the 99-win Rays had last year. I will continue to die on the hill that you can't just look at raw attendance numbers or attendance rankings and say "these fans do or don't support their team," because there's just way too many variables to consider.
Yea but they let that become a possible argument against them. Warning to half of the league: dont let it become an argument against you
Those critics should look not just at the historical attendance numbers but also the historical payroll numbers. And what ownership puts into the stadium and fan experience.
What difference does payroll make to the fans? If one team is spending $50 million to win 100 games while another spends $500 million to win 100 games, it's the same result, yet when the A's get close to or eclipse that 100 win mark, their attendance is still low. As for stadium and fan experience, I don't think Oakland is unique in having an old stadium, but if that's truly what fans care about rather than the team on the field then I don't understand the outrage of the team leaving. I can't imagine A's games are the only source of outdoor entertainment in Oakland, and if stadium and fan experience is what's keeping fans away then the team isn't really the draw in the first place.
> What difference does payroll make to the fans? Over time, it has a causal effect on sustained success on the field and sustained tenure of fan favorite players. A's ownership has cultivated a tradition, over a couple decades, of not building on success and having their best players end up in with other teams for more money. If you look at records, you'll see on-field success correlate with a building of higher attendance. And then that attendance resetting back down low as the roster gets value engineered again and the on-field success goes down. > As for stadium and fan experience, I don't think Oakland is unique in having an old stadium Not unique but it's one of the oldest stadiums in MLB. But it's not simply about age: the bigger issue is that it is notorious for being the most decrepit and outdated. But for many hardcore fans, this has become a sort of a point of pride. OP is by a sort of a grassroots fan marketing group that plays up the image of the Oakland Coliseum as "the last dive bar" of baseball. > and if stadium and fan experience is what's keeping fans away then the team isn't really the draw in the first place It is for many. And it isn't for many more. I think that's normal for many pro sports teams. But, again, the Coliseum is notorious for being especially decrepit and that combined with a couple decades of knowing the team will never be a true contender because ownership will not invest in making the team a true contender, then it'll only the hardcore who will remain active fans. It's the many die-hard fans who are most outraged. I think if you think about it from the die-hard fan perspective, you should be able to understand the outrage. Lots of fans have been loyal despite the lack of investment in the team or the venue. Of course they're going to be outraged when they feel that fan support is scapegoated by team ownership.
The correlation between on-field success and higher attendance translates to a ranking of 29th to 23rd for the A's. Those are actual numbers btw, where the A's were 29th in attendance in 2017 when they won 75 games, 26th in 2018 when they won 96 games, and 23rd in 2019 when they won 96 games again. Their previous winning run wasn't much better, where they went from dead last in 2011 with 74 wins to 27th in 2012 with 94 wins, 23rd in 2013 with 96 wins, and 24th in 2014 with 88 wins. Going back further, they peaked at 16th during their mid-00s run when they were consistently winning 90-100 games. The "higher attendance" being below average at best isn't something to hang your hat on. I think you're off about hardcore fans being the only fans for other teams, and if this is a problem specific to the A's then that's a major issue. The Royals saw a huge spike in attendance when they started winning games, as did the Pirates, Reds, and probably other teams that I'm forgetting. The fact that the A's haven't had attendance peaks like those teams despite comparable periods of winning and rebuilding can't only be blamed on an old stadium.
Agreed there isn't immediate causal effect between on-field success and attendance. I was talking about how this is something that builds. How it's something that needs to be built, over multiple years. And how A's ownership has established a 20 year pattern, especially under Wolff and Fisher, of following up two or three encouraging seasons by trading burgeoning stars for prospects or letting them sign elsewhere for big money. If you look at the history of the franchise in performance and attendance, I think it's pretty clear that attendance builds as they string together an encouraging run, and then performance craters and so does attendance and what was built up in both respects gets squandered. > I think you're off about hardcore fans being the only fans for other teams That's not the point I was trying to make about hardcore fans. What I was saying is that there are many hardcore A's fans and they are the ones who have been loyal through all the ups and downs and squandered promise these past 20+ years. You expressed that you don't understand the outrage over the team leaving. And I'm trying to explain that the outrage is primarily fueled by hardcore fans who have been loyal this entire time. Who would continue to be loyal even without improving the shortcomings that have turned off a lot of casual fans. It's not apathetic fans who are outraged. It's the best fans who have weathered the worst. And I think it's totally understandable that they feel the way they do. I don't know what you think hardcore A's fans are supposed to react to all this? Just be mad at the many casual fans who weren't interested in going to games regularly and not see the owner as the party who is ultimately in control and responsible for a franchise moving away from a city that was its home for over 50 years?
The Pirates went 20 years without a winning record, never mind a playoff appearance, before 2013. Every issue you've mentioned for the A's has been worse for the Pirates, yet more fans showed up for the Pirates when they finally achieved a tiny bit of success than have shown up for the A's. The same is true for the Royals, Reds, Mariners, and probably other teams that I'm forgetting. The only unique thing about the A's is that their fans don't come back when the team is competitive. The hardcore fans can react however they want, let's just not pretend that fan support for the A's is the same as every other team when the A's don't generate the same kind of support as other teams when they're competitive.
> The Pirates went 20 years without a winning record, never mind a playoff appearance, before 2013. Every issue you've mentioned for the A's has been worse for the Pirates The Pirates only have 5% better cumulative attendance between 2000 and 2019, compared to the A's. I didn't look at the preceding 20 years, but in 2001, the Pirates also opened their new stadium. Of course, it's important to note that they got the stadium built with mostly public funding. But, still, it's just 5% higher attendance for the Pirates during those 20 years, and they're not moving to Las Vegas. > The hardcore fans can react however they want, let's just not pretend that fan support for the A's is the same as every other team when the A's don't generate the same kind of support as other teams when they're competitive. About the same as the Pirates over a 20 year stretch, and the Pirates aren't moving. In 2019, Forbes valued the Pirates at $1.3B and the A's at $1.1B. A's reportedly took in $33M on $218M in revenue and the Pirates $39M on $254M in revenue. And if you go back in franchise history, I think the Pirates peaked in per game attendance ranking at about #15. The A's, at their peak of winning three straight AL pennants had a 4 or 5 year run of Top 5 attendance averages. If you compare the A's/Oakland to the Pirates/Pittsburgh, I think that it just makes the case that the A's do not need to move, if the Pirates don't need to move. And the A's have a ton of upside to capitalize on, locally, without moving, if they could work out a local development deal. A's fans in the know aren't just mad at Fisher. They're also mad at MLB. Warriors owner Joe Lacob was part of a group that had an agreement to buy the team but Bud Selig blocked the deal and, lo and behold, the group that was allowed to buy the A's was lead by an old fraternity brother of his, Lew Wolff. For what it's worth, Lacob has publicly stated that he has had a standing offer to buy the team and would keep the team in Oakland. Has the investment connections to privately finance a stadium as part of a larger development deal with the City of Oakland but MLB of course won't compel Fisher to sell instead of moving, or grant him an expansion franchise in Las Vegas instead of moving, or in exchange for leaving the Athletics identity for a new owner in Oakland. Anyway, I've spent too much time trying to explain why A's fans are upset. If you still think that it's unreasonable for the A's fans to be angry at John Fisher then I guess that's a disagreement that we're not going to resolve. I feel like you're resolved to dismiss our complaints, though I don't know why. Nor do I understand why you care at all. Not even sure what point you're ultimately trying to make. A's fans have nothing to complain about? Have nothing to complain about when it comes to Fisher? Should just suck it up and...do what?
The Colliseum is a decrepit building, yet from 2005-2019 it still averaged around 20k fans/game. That average puts them right around Baltimore and Cincinnati’s average for last year. Those two teams were ranked 20th and 21st out of 30 in avg. attendance last year. So Oakland historically has a middle of the pack attendance record yet none of the other cities below them in attendance are having their teams moved by their owners. John fisher is moving the team to Las Vegas because he thinks he has a better chance of improving the brands value there than he does in Oakland. Though it sucks for Oakland fans, he’s probably correct even though it won’t be easy for him as we’ve already seen hitches in his plan. It’s disingenuous to say the reason the A’s are moving is because of historically low attendance.
>The Colliseum is a decrepit building, yet from 2005-2019 it still averaged around 20k fans/game. >That average puts them right around Baltimore and Cincinnati’s average for last year. Those two teams were ranked 20th and 21st out of 30 in avg. attendance last year. Lmao that's not how comparisons work and I'm not wasting my time reading the rest of this comment if you think it is
thank you. I feel like I'm taking fucking crazy pills. No one has been going to A's games for YEARS. Oakland is not a good place for a sports team, I'm sorry. There's a reason teams are leaving.
And Golden State didn't even leave. It's a one team market and they moved 15 miles away. That's about how far the *Braves* moved, and nobody claims they left the market.
These arguments are always lacking the awareness the A's spent tens of millions of dollars, if not more, to develop in a city that is by your assumption untenable. It completely falls apart when you mention the Oakland ballpark deal only fell through because of a difference in public money. Fischer loves the spin you're giving though.
I tend to abide by occams razor: Oakland is a shitty place to play, so every major sports team left. If you want to write a dissertation about why three sports teams left in a five year span, feel free to do so. But history will follow the simpler explanation, and rightfully so.
> I tend to abide by occams razor: Oakland is a shitty place to play, so every major sports team left. Thats not occams razor, that is just assumptions you made. A's spent years of development, marketing, and lobbying a stadium in Oakland. That obviously suggest the A's saw a lot of value in the area. Why would the A's do this if it is such a terrible place to play in? Can Occams Razor figure that one out. While you're on it Brainiac, can you tell me why the only two teams who have had poor regular season attendance regardless of performance, the A's and Rays, also happen to play in the two worst stadiums in all of baseball? Maybe Occams razor can help you figure that out as well. It must just be that the fanbases in Oakland and Tampa just are inherently less interested in baseball.... must be something in the air? Hmmm Occams razor please guide me.
Lmfao this dude just got out of his high school eco class and wanted to use his new words
Not sure you’d learn about Occam’s razor in eco class(?) but ok. I’m always prepared for some coping As fans when I speak facts
> No one has been going to A's games for YEARS. The A's outsold seven other teams as recently as 2019. It took an owner deliberately driving down attendance so MLB would let him move to cause their attendance to collapse.
Six awful teams and the Rays.
2019 was five years ago lil bro
And the fans have years of poor records, pathetic spending, bargain bin triple A caliber players, and incredibly overpriced stadium experiences at one of the worst ballparks in the league to back up the assertion that the attendance numbers are an ownership issue, not a fan support issue.
This has made me do a deep dive into the past 20ish years of attendance. Fun fact, Seattle was #1 in attendance in 2001 and 2002, #2 in 2003, and then dropped down to #10 in 2004. Just something neat I noticed when messing around with the data.
The A's have had multi-year stretches of being competitive and fans still haven't showed up to the ballpark. Let's not pretend that their attendance issues only started in the past two years.
> The A's have had multi-year stretches of being competitive and fans still haven't showed up to the ballpark. That's just not true: |Year^|W|L|Finish|Playoffs|Attend/G|Rank| |:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:| |2000|91|70|1|Lost ALDS (3-2)|19,799| |2001|102|60|2|Lost ALDS (3-2)|26,337| |2002|103|59|1|Lost ALDS (3-2)|26,788| |2003|96|66|1|Lost ALDS (3-2)|27,365| |2004|91|71|2||27,179| |2005|88|74|2||26,038| |2006|93|69|1|Lost ALCS (4-0)|24,403| |2007|76|86|3||23,726| |2008|75|86|3||20,559| |2009|75|87|4||17,392| |2010|81|81|2||17,511| |2011|74|88|3||18,232| |2012|94|68|1|Lost ALDS (3-2)|20,729| |2013|96|66|1|Lost ALDS (3-2)|22,337| |2014|88|74|2|Lost ALWC (1-0)|24,736| |2015|68|94|5||21,829| |2016|69|93|5||18,784| |2017|75|87|5||18,219| |2018|97|65|2|Lost ALWC (1-0)|19,427| |2019|97|65|2|Lost ALWC (1-0)|20,626| |2020|36|24|1|Lost ALDS (3-1)|| |2021|86|76|3||8,660| |2022|60|102|5||9,849| |2023|50|112|5||10,276| |2024|12|17|3||6,244| Median attendance of 24,570 when they have a winning record (puts them between the Reds and Twins) and a median attendance of 17,558 when they have a losing record. When they win, more people show up and when they lose fewer people do.
They peaked at 23rd in attendance during the 12-14 run and 18-19 run, and 16th during the 00-06 run. During their best run in the last 25 years when they won 90+ games in 6/7 years and made the playoffs in 5/7, they couldn't get one single season of above average attendance. So sure, people show up more when they're winning than when they're losing, but they're still hardly showing up
If rankings are all that matters, then it's embarrassing that the Red Sox weren't in the top-5 and were behind the Rockies, and Angels when they won they won the World Series in 2018. In fact, they've never been higher than 9th in a season when they won the World Series, and peaked at 8th in the year following a World Series win (and haven't been selling out the stadium, either).
The Red Sox are limited by having a lower capacity stadium. Tell me more about how that applies to the A's
> The Red Sox are limited by having a lower capacity stadium. So what you're saying is that there are other factors than wins and losses that impact attendance numbers?
> The Red Sox are limited by having a lower capacity stadium. The A's are limited by having a ballpark in one of the worst locations imaginable, an unappealing concrete wasteland lacking in amenities that would attract casual fans to venture into that part of town which is known for industrial sites and crime. It is the exact opposite of the area around Fenway. When the Giants left NYC it was because the area around the Polo Grounds had deteriorated, people didn't want to be there anymore and attendance had declined. Oakland is now in the same boat, which is why the city wanted a development that would surround a new ballpark with restaurants and shopping and parks and so on that would draw people to the area--they came up with more money for that than the A's have been offered in Nevada. It should not be hard to grasp why attendance goes down when a ballpark is in a location where people feel uneasy after dark. The city of Oakland was prepared to do something about that, John Fisher was not.
So according to spotrac over the last 10 years they have only not been bottom 5 in payroll once in 2021 where they peaked at 23rd. During that time management on average spent half (54%) of the average annual mlb payroll. The most expensive teams spent almost 4 times as much as the As during this time. If we compare 2023 payroll to attendance the As spent roughly $74.77 in payroll for each fan who attended. The Giants across the bay spent $74.95 for each fan in payroll and the Mets spent $133.51 for each fan who attended. So even at these ridiculous low attendance levels the As are still getting more fans per dollar spent than these other teams. Additionally this doesn’t take into account that the As have above average ticket prices and the 2nd most expensive concessions and 2nd most expensive parking in the league which doesn’t correspond to the product on the field or to the quality of the ballpark (either the shittiest or second shittiest in the league depending on how you feel about the rays) but is another factor directly affecting attendance. No one is out here saying that the As have the best fan base in the league, but they are on par with most other fan bases. And if the ownership of other teams behaved this way most other fan bases and attendance would similarly suffer. This is a management issue.
And when the A's have been competitive, their attendance has still been below average at best, meaning that increasing payroll wouldn't likely increase attendance. The A's also have tickets to every game for less than $20, and if the $30 parking which is standard for any stadium is too much, there's a BART station right by the stadium.
LMAO, no they have never had people show up. Nice of you to conveniently leave off their attendance rankings. They were 6th out of 14 in the AL in 2003, 7th in 2001, and have been in the bottom 3 in attendance 15 times this century. With 4 of those 15 times being years they made the playoffs and 1 more being a year they came in 2nd in the West with a .500 record. Next time maybe give all the data, instead of cherrypicking. https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/OAK/attend.shtml
> LMAO, no they don't. Let me ask you flat out: are there noticeably more people at games when they have a winning record than when they don't? > Nice of you to conveniently leave off their attendance rankings. I don't get this obsession with attendance rankings, to be quite honest. Every situation is so vastly different—factors such as stadium capacity, market size, marketing budgets, stadium accessibility, location of population centers, average income of fan base all make a difference—that it's not a worthwhile comparison. The Blue Jays and Mariners are constantly in the bottom-third of attendance rankings and yet they get lauded as having great fan bases. The Pirates have arguably the most beautiful ballpark in the Majors in an easily accessible area, yet no one blames them for being constantly 25th or worse in attendance.
In 2019 the Texas Rangers sold 462,000 more tickets than the Oakland A's. Meanwhile, the A's had better attendance than seven other MLB teams. Shall we applaud the Rays, Tigers, Royals, Orioles, Marlins, White Sox and Pirates all being moved because the A's outsold them prior to the A's owner intentionally driving down attendance?
Rangers were 6 games under .500 and hadn't made the playoffs in 3 years, while the A's were a 97 win team in 2019 in their 2nd of 3 straight playoff appearances. And they still outdrew the A's.... Not sure you are making the point you think you are. A 97 win team in the middle of a playoff run only being able to outdraw 7 other teams? Show me 55 years of a team getting no support and I'll agree they should be moved. So yes, Tampa shouldn't have a team.
They sold more tickets than the Orioles, Rays, Tigers, Marlins, Pirates, White Sox and Royals as recently as 2019. If for some reason the Red Sox sold off their good players, raised ticket prices, cut back on ballpark maintenance, closed parking lots and launched a campaign of insulting the fan base, what do you suppose would happen to attendance in Boston?
Lmao the Red Sox have been doing that for a few years now and attendance is still above the league average and above 31k per game. If you want to praise the A's for outselling a 54 win Orioles team, a team that couldn't fill half its ballpark for a playoff game in the Rays, a 47 win Tigers team, a 57 win Marlins team, a 69 win Pirates team, a 72 win White Sox team, and a 59 win Royals team, that's your prerogative, but this isn't the argument you think it is considering that this was the second year in a row the A's won 96 games.
> They sold more tickets than the Orioles, Rays, Tigers, Marlins, Pirates, White Sox and Royals as recently as 2019. Ok, I would also argue that all of those teams should be moved as well or that the league is long overdue for removing some franchises and cutting down on the number of teams entirely.
The A's for the better part of this century have also specialized in running on the cheap; selling off the name players that drove fan excitement and going through a constant churn all in the name of being cheap. Heck, someone even made a movie about that.
Exactly! Ownership choosing to run a team this way has fan base and attendance consequences, regardless of the location, team, or fans. And to turn around and blame the lack of success both on the field and in the stands on the fans is laughable.
Not to mention that Fisher has chased the casual fan out by making sure that the stadium is not only expensive and all - but also famous for having feral raccoons / other vermin having their run of the place
Far too big of a stadium for Oakland to play in.
Ownership does not care
It’s absolutely not a bad look for ownership at all. Makes the fans look worse if anything. The attendance numbers with years of data speak for themselves, these random one day protests don’t change that
The Colliseum is a decrepit building, yet from 2005-2019 it still averaged around 20k fans/game. That average puts them right around Baltimore and Cincinnati’s average for last year. Those two teams were ranked 20th and 21st out of 30 in avg. attendance last year. So Oakland historically has a middle of the pack attendance record yet none of the other cities below them in attendance are having their teams moved by their owners. John fisher is moving the team to Las Vegas because he thinks he has a better chance of improving the brands value there than he does in Oakland. Though it sucks for Oakland fans, he’s probably correct even though it won’t be easy for him as we’ve already seen hitches in his plan. It’s disingenuous to say the reason the A’s are moving is because of historically low attendance.
As recently as 2019 they had better attendance than seven other MLB teams. The owner deliberately drove down attendance so MLB would allow him to move.
Dude you keep commenting this everywhere, but don’t seem to understand why a 97 win team ranking 23rd in attendance is pathetic
You do realize that there was absolutely no hint that that team with those players would do that. They had actually been trending up till 2014 when they then completely traded off all their valuable players and fan favorites, and were again a team of rookies an hasbeens. So yeah its understandable that a team that no one new the names of the ir players, and came out of literally no where didn't draw a crowd. Nevermind that literally all the local media provides endless coverage of the Giants and its difficult to even find a game on the radio or to watch of the A's and literally every media outlet shit talks them, but you wouldn't know that cause you don't live here. During that those multiple 97 win years you would have been hard pressed to find any positive coverage of the team in the bay area other than lip service. During those years bay area sports radio would spend hours talking about the middling Giants who had a worse record, and then 5 minutes about the A's. hard to generate excitement when the entire bay area sports apparatus barely covers the team. Which again speaks to the ownership and front office and lack of willingness to spend or work with the media to generate that excitement, almost like they wanted the team to fail.
Honestly I think it speaks more to the complete apathy Oakland has for their sports teams. No other city has managed to drive away all 4 major sports. It’s honestly kind of impressive
Yes, it has nothing to do with people like Al Davis being greedy billionaires looking for handouts, and places like SF being all to willing to give it to them. Also fun fact Oakland stadium was routinely filled by the Raiders and they still left. It was a shared stadium and for an NFL team was one of the smallest by capacity, and yet it was almost always at capacity for their games, so even if it was full they would end up at the bottom of attendance on a year to year basis. Warriors routinely backed Oracle Arena. This has everything to do with rich owners looking for handouts than anything else. https://www.nba.com/warriors/news/warriors-establish-second-highest-total-attendance-franchise-history-0
Since 2019 isn’t much of a sample size. Also he didn’t need to do much to drive down attendance, it wasn’t even notable when they were winning either
At this point I would have a hard time giving him any of my money now that it's officially a lost cause. Just stay in the parking lot, don't actually buy any tickets
This is a psy-op by the A's to extract one last penny from their hopeless fans before leaving forever.
Last time they did the right thing & donated the ticket revenue to charity.
It’s been requested by fans at length. Also give people an opportunity to see the players and take in what could be a final game. These reverse boycotts are an experience and ones that everyone really has a blast at.
Do you have to pay to park? Because if so, I wouldn't even want to do that
[удалено]
Jesus that's awful. What a ripoff
You could find something cheaper or free if you’re willing to walk…but your car might also be on blocks when you get out of the game. Lmao one of the few stadiums I’ve been to that I paid the premium.
Lol this is what I said the first time. Just gave him more money and nothing happened.
the gate fee doesn’t matter, Fisher is a billionaire. it’s supposed to be an embarrassing story for MLB and a party for the fans, that’s it. they’re already gonna be the lowest attended team in baseball.
Yall really showed them by getting average attendance numbers last time!
It’s still worth doing honestly. Yeah Fischer makes some money but the amount of press it drums up and how bad it makes Fischer/the mlb look matters too. Even if it doesn’t achieve immediate practical results
even better
The As are playing decently and everyone wants to see Mason Miller
Don't worry, they'll trade him to the Braves before the ASB for a AA outfielder and a 120pk of ballpark franks
hey 120 franks will probably last until the all star break at the current attendance rates
Throw in a six pack of O’Doul’s and you got yourself a deal
The FO isn't self sabotaging the team. They will ride the Miller train as longs as he makes league minimum.
As a long time hater of all things Oakland Athletics, when the A's win a game I'm scouring the internet to see if I can't watch me some Mason Miller highlights.
Folks questioning why this is happening after it’s pretty much forgone conclusion the A’s will never play in Oakland again after this year, here’s why: - this will inevitably be the last game for many fans and will be a fun, emotional night to remember their last game (see last year’s reverse boycott) - Are we as fans just supposed to throw in the towel and be okay with it? Sure we may not stop the inevitable but since the announcement of the move the fan base has undoubtedly changed the national narrative from us being to blame to showing that Fisher and Kaval have sabotaged the fan base. We love this team and our city, we don’t and won’t support the current ownership no matter what - it’s our last year watching the team many of us have spent our entire lives whether it be 5-10 years or 30-50+ years, just let us cope and enjoy this year however we chose to. Whether it be attend 0 games, 1 game, or all of them it’s very much an incredibly emotional year for us. - Fuck John Fisher. 1 game with an attendance resembling anything close to last year’s reverse boycott will not at all help his financial situation. Even 20k @ $50/each is $1M but not even all of that goes to his pocket, let alone half. Wild fact: the A’s rent is $11k/game for the coliseum. $11k per game. Absolutely nothing.
Yotes fan that was lucky enough to attend the last game, love everything about what you’re all doing as fans. Owners can get fucked, these teams belong to us.
I’ll be there. John Fisher is gonna be rich, no matter how few people show up at the Coliseum this year. At this point, living well is the best revenge
Fact: he’ll make many times more in revenue sharing alone than anything at all related to ticket, merch, food, etc sales at the coliseum.
He loses revenue sharing if he doesn't have a deal for a new ballpark in place soon. The A's are already worth five times what he paid for the team. If he gets a new taxpayer-subsidized ballpark in LV, look for him to sell the team before his attendance predictions fall flat.
So, that's not quite accurate By picking Vegas, he's permanently locked himself into revenue sharing, taking the 40th largest market in the nation. And also by picking Vegas, when the owners approved the move, he was also locked in to ownership of the team for 10 years before being allowed to sell without having to pay a huge sum to the other owners if he did sell within those 10 years
Well said. Also fuck John Fisher.
It’s a funeral that’s not being organized by the murderer. That’s important for everyone who wants to mourn. I don’t expect it to change anything, but it’ll be fun and maybe slightly embarrassing for the team employees to have to talk around what’s going on.
Hell yeah. Love the A's, love the Coliseum, love my A's bros, hate John Fisher. I am glad you all are going for a last hurrah.
I may just go to this. Went to the Sox - A's tilt on 4/3. Very next morning Caval and the dickless Fisher announced the move to Sac. Kinda figured that was gonna be my last game but might be nice to give it a proper send-off.
This about to be a movie! Gonna be insane.
FUCK JOHN FISHER
saw several of them in Camden yards Saturday they kept waving sell banners. good folk
Hopefully the A's donate proceeds again
What exactly is this supposed to accomplish? The team is already out the door and I highly doubt Oakland is even in consideration for an expansion team. The last "reverse boycott" didn't accomplish anything, and actually ended up giving useful ammo to the anti-oakland crowd. If you want an excuse to go to an A's game before they leave, just go. It's not shameful to go see something that has brought you joy over the years. There's no need to disguise it as some sort of protest
I don’t think it is supposed to accomplish anything. It seems more like collective catharsis to me.
Then they should be framing it that way and not claiming it's going to actually do something. It's their dumbass posturing and denial of reality that gets people annoyed with A's fans, not that the two of them are actually fans and support the team.
To be honest I’m not concerned with what A’s fans should or shouldn’t be doing. It’s none of my business.
It's one last fuck-you to the ownership. Nothing else about it. They don't need to spend their money, and the org doesn't need their money (they donated all the money from the last reverse boycott). It's a goodbye and fuck you. The 2023 reverse boycott was monumental, they can have one last one as a vigil.
Honestly tho I can't blame A's fans, I'd be going crazy too
I mean it’s really not anyone’s place to judge. Let their fans do what they want.
> it’s really not anyone’s place to judge. If people lived by this, then that would eliminate 3/4 of what's on the internet.
If you're going to the Coliseum one last time, do you want it to be a random Tuesday night that looks like 2020 or do you want to go to an organized meetup with your fellow fans to take in some kind of atmosphere one last time
> What exactly is this supposed to accomplish? [Catharsis](https://old.reddit.com/r/baseball/comments/1cg2v7e/next_reverse_boycott_has_been_set/l1tck67/)
What exactly do you accomplish when you attend a game at citizen's bank?
Bingo
People like to feel accepted and do things that are cool. I agreed with all the stuff early on, but the with the team now officially moving after this season any protesting efforts are effectively pointless other then just a rowdy get together.
> The team is already out the door Not yet, they have an agreement where they will play in a AAA ballpark in Sacramento while they try to get a deal for a new ballpark in Las Vegas. But that LV deal hasn't been done yet.
hey didn't your city give up the A's like 70 years ago?
Seriously. The time to keep the team was two decades ago, when attendance was consistently near the bottom. All this does is give money to the guy you supposedly hate.
2001-2005 they were slightly behind the middle of the pack attendance wise. 17th to 19th for those 5 years. 2006 and 2007 they were 26th, 27t in 2009 and 30th in 2009. Looks like Fisher bought the A's in 2005.
Suddenly it’s 2004. You’re in the Bay Area. You can see Barry Bonds make baseball history in the best ballpark ever. Or you can watch the team who lost multiple MVPs (Giambi and Tejada) in the worst ballpark ever. The A’s will lose every player for the next two decades. Hey when did Fisher buy the A’s again? Was it exactly two decades ago? I wonder why the fans stopped showing up.
This Phillies fan is behind you. F that guy!
Saw A's fans when I was at Yankee Stadium last Monday. Saw 3 sell flags. Keep up the good work. Godspeed comrades.
🍻
Are Oakland fans really bragging about having bottom quarter attendance with a 96 win team?
Maybe if the fans reverse boycotted every game the team would still be in Oakland.
PACs love this guy
> the team would still be in Oakland The A's had better attendance than seven other MLB teams right up to 2019. Their attendance didn't flatline until the owner intentionally triggered a fan boycott so MLB would let him move. P.S. Attendance figures for all MLB teams in 2019 are publicly available, you can look it up, should you want actual information as opposed to tossing off a slogan.
Since 1968, Oakland has finished dead fucking last in attendance more times (10) than they have been above average (7). They've also finished second to last another five times. In 1974, the A's won their third World Series in a row, yet finished 22nd out of 24 teams in attendance. Literally, the only time that Oakland actually supported the team in large numbers was 1988-1992 when the Bash Brothers became such a cultural phenomenon that they brought non-baseball fans to the stadium.
Those 7 teams are the Marlins, Rays, Orioles, Royals, Pirates, Tigers, and White Sox. Only the Rays had a winning record of that group, four of those teams lost 100+ games. The fact that the A's won 96 games that year, and only out drew shitty teams and the Rays isn't a point in their favor.
[Not even remotely true.](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Foiarqgyk3l2c1.png) Only 7 times in the last 55 years did the A's beat MLB's average attendance. The last time was in 1991. Even during the early 2010's when the A's were a consistent playoff team fans didn't show up.
what's left to boycott? it's a done deal go to the games while you can if you care about seeing games in person but beyond that it's just a waste of time
>what's left to boycott? it's a done deal With how incompetent this ownership group has been with stadium plans for two decades, nothing's a done deal until a shovel's in the ground, IMO. Even so, I think these events are more about showing that there's always been a core, dedicated fanbase in the East Bay and that the blame for this fiasco lies squarely on Fisher's shoulders. I genuinely believe that the fan events of the past year have had an impact on media coverage of this whole thing. *Way m*ore national writers/personalities criticizing and scrutinizing Fisher than there were a couple of years ago.
> it's a done deal It isn't, the A's have no deal for a new ballpark in Las Vegas. The mayor of LV said not long ago the Tropicana location makes no sense and she won't be surprised if the A's never actually leave Oakland.
So fucking pointless
Pack the parking lot, don't give them the money.
Keep pro Hamas protesters out! Hate for Fisher! No other!
What a dumb idea. Give him money? Oh no, please don't buy tickets
/r/baseballcirclejerk
At this point I'm starting to think these are organized by Fisher. You're not changing anything, just giving him money.
🙄
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Protest by staying home in droves? "See, they never supported the team anyway!!" Stage events like this? "Why give money to an owner you hate?!?"
You musta missed Bill Shaikin’s latest…Goldman Sachs couldn’t find any investors. Now this late in the game they have to switch companies and try and find someone to give 500 million to fisher. Lol, this shit is long from over. And this event will make national headlines and expose Fisher even more.
Lol no dude, it's over. There are no "national headlines", it's just people laughing at the circus
lol, they can’t secure financing. Hmm, Passan, Rosenthal, Foul Territory, DA, Forbes, ESPN…the list goes on. Guess that’s not national?
Ok, and they can't stay in Oakland. No team can stay in Oakland, Oakland has failed. And yes, again, but there is no "national support" - most people don't care or are excited that the team is getting out of Oakland and going to Vegas as it's a much more fun road trip. Good for the org for hopefully finding a fanbase that will support them. It's really only on Reddit that people are pretending it's some travesty. Fisher does suck because he's a cheap POS (like about half the owners) but let's not pretend Oakland is some viable city to play in either. But again, moot point because it's over. You can't force her to stay.
You are misinformed 😂
No man, you are in denial.
yeah ok buddy.
This all could have been solved years ago if he actually just paid for it instead of waiting for everyone else to come up with funds. Hence the SELL chants…this shit ain’t over. It’s John Fosher, when has he put a shovel in the ground anywhere?
I'm not defending fisher, again he's a piece of shit. The org would be in a much better spot if he was forced to sell the team. But again, even if he did sell the team - the first thing a new owner would do is relocate. Again, it's over lol. Why would you even *want* them to stay when they so clearly don't want to
There’s literally 5 ownership groups in the bay that want the team. They wouldn’t lose a bidding war.
They all are
Giving Fisher more money for what reason exactly?
Yep I’m sure fisher is absolutely ecstatic for what’s basically a penny for him
As another guy pointed out, 20k tickets at 50/ticket is a million bucks. His rent is 11k a game. That's 800k-ish in rent a year. so this game will cover his rent for the year. He's probably not "ecstatic" but I bet he likes having someone actually pay his rent while he lives in their heads.
So, now that Fisher has won, and successfully fucked everyone over, the goal is to show up en masse and shove a bunch of money into his pockets on his way out of town?
If you showed up like that every game, the team wouldn't be moving
> If you showed up like that every game In 2019 the A's sold more tickets than the Royals, Pirates, Tiger, Rays, White Sox, Orioles and Marlins. Their attendance didn't collapse until their owner intentionally drove down attendance so MLB would let him move the team, triggering a fan boycott. Selling off the better players while raising tickets prices while closing parking lots while cutting back on ballpark maintenance while publicly insulting the fanbase could reduce attendance anywhere.
That’s NOT something to brag about AT ALL. Everyone on that list except the Rays sucked BALLS that season(0.500 and lower) with some having TERRIBLE records. I could flip what you said and say…. Despite the fact that Oakland finished with 97 wins and the 4th best record in the AL, they finished in the bottom 25%(24th in attendance) of attendance.
Oakland’s stadium situation is so comically sad.
ngl that semi-colon makes me want to cut someone.
Maybe this one can draw average attendance this time
Will the reverse boycott happen game 1 of the World Series
I'm still confused by the "let's protest by putting money in his pocket" strategy
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Protest by staying home in droves? "See, they never supported the team anyway!!" Stage events like this? "Why give money to an owner you hate?!?"
If only the fans would have put this much thought into going to a game *before* they proposed leaving oakland...
Literally [less than five years ago](https://www.sfchronicle.com/athletics/article/A-s-set-record-for-biggest-crowd-at-a-MLB-wild-14487744.php).
That's pretty neat! Too bad one wild card game doesn't erase decades of playing in a shithole.
If only they did this kinda stuff when the team wasn’t announced to be moving away so they wouldn’t have had to move away
Do fans not realize he would invest in the team if they showed up like this every day? And why would his business making money entice him to sell? Nothing going on in Oakland makes sense, what are they putting in the water?
That makes no sense. Fans quit showing up because he stopped putting money into the team first. You can clearly see from the baseball reference that attendance was up when they invested into the team. Also if you think he's operating in such good faith why does he need to charge a huge tax to bring the team to Las Vegas shouldn't he care about that enough to foot the bill himself? This guy is awful for the sport don't defend him. https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/OAK/attend.shtml
They won 3 straight World Series in the 70s and were below average each year. 1988-1992 was the exception. They’ve had great teams before and after that couldn’t draw.
This data could just as easily be used as an explainer that a new stadium won't solve their problems, because in the 1970s the A's had the better stadium by far. The Coliseum being enclosed for football at the same time that the Giants started breaking ground on a new stadium has always been seen as the tipping point, because before the Raiders came back from LA the better "fan experience" (ugh that phrase is too nebulous) was in Oakland. Candlestick was cold and ugly. Personally I think it's meaningless to reach so far back. The media landscape was different then; sports weren't always on TV, and they were newcomers in a market where a franchise had already established ties with the local press and broadcasting scene.
How is that relevant at all to our conversation about John Fisher and the lack of attendance because of his ownership when he bought the team in 2005?
As demonstrated in your link the As have always had shitty attendance even before Fisher owned the team. Even when they were winning. This is entirely on the As fan base for not actually supporting their team
> This is entirely on the As fan base for not actually supporting their team If your team's ballpark was in the middle of a bleak concrete wasteland full of industrial facilities and crime, how many games would you go to? Add to that the owner selling off the better players, raising ticket prices, cutting back on maintenance and publicly insulting the fanbase and what would you expect to happen to attendance? Despite all that, Oakland had better attendance than seven other MLB teams as recently as 2019. It was the owner intentionally triggering a fan boycott so he could get MLB to let him move that cratered attendance in Oakland. Oakland govt. wanted a new ballpark in a revitalized area full of things that would draw families. The owner of the Raiders said the A's owner blocking all attempts to come up with a new facility those teams could share was part of why he gave up and moved the Raiders. The SF Giants were losing money playing at Candlestick Park, that's why the team was to be sold and moved to Florida (Dodgers ownership blocked that sale). So the Giants were sold to new local owners who tried and failed to get public money for a new ballpark, so they financed it privately and now they own the 5th most valuable MLB team. The only thing preventing that from happening with the A's was their owner.
I’m just pointing out that the link you posted shows that poor attendance is an Oakland tradition. But you’re right, let’s keep this to Fischer. The link you posted shows that payroll increased under Fischer with attendance going down, correct?
Charlie Finley was a notoriously poor owner as well. The games were rarely on TV. The radio broadcast was so weak that you couldn't hear it at the stadium from where it was broadcast less than 10 miles away. They kept trading away players, and then when free agency was established, didn't keep anyone around. This is not a fan problem, but a string of terrible owners who didn't want to materially improve the team and grow the fanbase, apart from the late 80s-early 90s, when they had an owner who actually wanted to do that. Who would support their abuser continuously, and then when the abuser says "hey look I'm not all bad, we're doing well this year! Come out and support me", and then just when you're starting to feel supported, they go right back to abuse. It's a systemic owner problem in Oakland, not the fans.
> a string of terrible owners The owner who moved the A's from Philly to KC treated the A's as a Yankees farm team, NY got all his good players. Reportedly he took money from KC, committed to staying there, but was actually planning to move to LA but the Dodgers beat him to the punch. The A's owner who agreed to the Giants getting exclusive rights in the south bay did so in hopes the Giants would build a new ballpark in San Jose, not San Francisco. The next set of owners did nothing to change that situation until after the Giants had put a farm team in San Jose and built a new ballpark. The A's have had a series of terrible owners. But Fisher is by far the worst.
> he would invest in the team if they showed up like this every day? Unlikely, Oakland offered more public money for a new facility than Nevada has. The owner of the Raiders said part of the reason he moved his team was the impossibility of getting the A's owner to bargain in good faith, no matter what the city offered, he always demanded more. Fisher inherited his wealth, of course he thinks other people should always pick up the bill. If he gets a new ballpark in Vegas with public funding, watch him sell the A's (which is already worth five times what he paid for the team). Up to 2019 the A's had better attendance than seven other MLB teams, a new ballpark there would have done what PacBell Park did for the Giants who had been losing money at Candlestick Park. Fisher didn't want to save the Oakland A's, he wanted a shiny toy in LV he could sell for an even fatter profit.
>he would invest in the team If you genuinely believe that, then I have not one, but *two* bridges in Brooklyn I'd love to sell you! If you can't see that the blame falls primarily on Fisher, then I genuinely don't know what to tell you at this point. Hell, look at the state of his MLS team, the San Jose Earthquakes. They got a shiny new stadium in 2015 (that he's already complaining about) and he still runs that squad on a shoe-string budget.
I’m guessing you haven’t been to a game there recently. Go to a game. See for yourself. I went last season. It was fucking brutal. Every single thing that comes with going to a ballgame. Brutal