Great Player Effect2 - Page 3

tysok · 07-06-2006, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Questdog

Amos was the first real star player the Royals had....

Was KC fan Bill James favorite .....

Well coming on in 1970 there wasn't much choice in who wuld be the first real star player.

Lou Piniella or Ted Abernathy is the other choices, Abernathy was already old, and Lou Piniella didn't do much for them.

Otis isn't all that great of an example though, he was let walk in 83 at 36 years old. Fans may have been a little ticked off, but once he started sucking in Pittsburgh they probably got happier.

BigMember · 07-06-2006, 11:02 AM

Amos Otis. Like I said before, he was a jerk. He was liked early in his career by fans, but was never liked by players. He was not a team player at all and this was exposed to the fans when he became extremely jealous when Willie Wilson arrived and challenged Otis for the CF spot. Otis wouldn't give up CF and forced the team to play the much faster and better defensive Wilson in LF. After a while the Royals finally told Otis to get over it. He couldn't, so he was gone.

Otis also had run ins with fans a few times in the stands and even got in fights with a few players in the clubhouse. No one liked the guy. A buddy of mine even kicked his sons ass at a bowling alley in Blue Springs MO cause he had the same attitude his dad had.

Growing up in Blue Springs MO, we lived next to Hal McRae and later Lee May and I got to know them and their kids very well. I played baseball out behind our house all summer for a few years with Lee May Jr and Brian McRae back around 1981 and 1982. Brian even played football with me on the Great Blue Springs Wildcat teams of the 80's. I even got to jog with Lee May and Hal McRae and sons during the strike of 81. I got to talk to them quite a bit and Hal McRae stated a few times as to what a jerk Otis was.

No, Otis wasn't as popular as people think.

Syd Thrift · 07-06-2006, 01:14 PM

Well... you can be popular with the fans but not the players. Mark Grace was a great example of that. Many people thought of him as Mr. Cub but from what I've read, everybody in the locker room just plain hated him.

To get back on topic, winning and losing isn't enough IMO. Not messing with fan expectations is bigger, and very closely correlated to winning and losing, but it's not the same. I think recent history has shown us that once you build a team and then blow it up, even if you build another good team the fans aren't necessarily going to turn out to see it because they don't want to get emotionally invested in a team that they're not going to recognize in 6 months.

rocknfire7 · 07-06-2006, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMember

Amos Otis? He was not that popular here in Kansas City. He had run ins with fans and players both. Plus when we got rid of him, we still had players like Brett, Leonard, Wilson and Big Mac. Otis was not missed in KC. He was so jealous of Willie Wilson he caused problems here.

The last few years he played in KC he was booed a few times. And Royals fans of that time didn't boo players. I didn't like him that much either.

Questdog · 07-06-2006, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

To get back on topic, winning and losing isn't enough IMO. Not messing with fan expectations is bigger, and very closely correlated to winning and losing, but it's not the same. I think recent history has shown us that once you build a team and then blow it up, even if you build another good team the fans aren't necessarily going to turn out to see it because they don't want to get emotionally invested in a team that they're not going to recognize in 6 months.

If this were true, then I would think attendance would be going down overall due to the jump in player movement....

Winning and Losing isn't everything, but it's the only thing that matters...

Syd Thrift · 07-06-2006, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Questdog

If this were true, then I would think attendance would be going down overall due to the jump in player movement....

Winning and Losing is everything, but it's the only thing that matters...

I don't think it's ever been statistically shown that there's any more player movement now than in years past. Also, there are many, many variables involved here. Winning games is one. Not screwing with your fanbase is another - I cite the Florida Marlins as the #1 example, but I can remember my Mariners doing the same kinds of things with Danny Tartabull and Phil Bradley in the 1980s, and the end results were similar - it took a lot of owner goodwill to make the Mariners a team that was attractive to keep in Seattle. I can think of a lot of other teams. Many of them are also really bad teams in terms of wins and losses, but I think they still end up drawing fewer fans than good teams going through rebuilding cycles.

Another aspect that is not included in the game at all is the whole "build me a new stadium or I'll leave town" thing. Unless the public acquiesces quickly and gets the owner new digs, that can really hurt attendance. Even if a team is winning 90 games a year, who wants to get involved with a squad that might pack up and leave before spring training next season? That again comes down to messing with a team.

And what of the A's? The A's are the thinking man's ballclub, but I certainly understand where it could be frustrating to follow what is all too often a team of walking and power hitting nobodies. Might that factor in to their perennially low attendance?

BigMember · 07-06-2006, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Questdog

If this were true, then I would think attendance would be going down overall due to the jump in player movement....

Winning and Losing is everything, but it's the only thing that matters...

If winning is the only thing that matters, why in the hell would the Kansas City Royals still have anyone come out to the park? We still get enough to get by and we haven't won at all in the past.......hell, who knows anymore?

Questdog · 07-06-2006, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I don't think it's ever been statistically shown that there's any more player movement now than in years past.

It's absurd to think that this is not the case, especially for star-quality players...

Questdog · 07-06-2006, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMember

If winning is the only thing that matters, why in the hell would the Kansas City Royals still have anyone come out to the park? We still get enough to get by and we haven't won at all in the past.......hell, who knows anymore?

No stadium will ever be 100% empty....but didn't the Royals draw a lot more in the 80's than they do now?...

BigMember · 07-06-2006, 02:03 PM

Also, look at the Cubs. They went allot of lean years in terms of wins, but they have been sold out every game forever. Why? Maybe cause their fans got to see players like Billy Williams and Ernie Banks play even into years where they should have retired maybe. But the owners saw their worth to the fans and the fans repaid the effort.

BigMember · 07-06-2006, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Questdog

No stadium will ever be 100% empty....but didn't the Royals draw a lot more in the 80's than they do now?...

Yeah, when we had the best baseball player of the era.....George Brett. Even if we didn't win in 80 and 85, we still would have drew fans. I mean we drew fans before 80 too.

Questdog · 07-06-2006, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMember

Yeah, when we had the best baseball player of the era.....George Brett. Even if we didn't win in 80 and 85, we still would have drew fans. I mean we drew fans before 80 too.

You don't have to win the Series to have a winning club....Every year from about, what?...1976? to 1990?, the Royals fans went into the season expecting to see a pennant race....

BigMember · 07-06-2006, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Questdog

You don't have to win the Series to have a winning club....Every year from about, what?...1976? to 1990?, the Royals fans went into the season expecting to see a pennant race....

Thats right, cause we had big name players who the fans believed in.

Questdog · 07-06-2006, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMember

Thats right, cause we had big name players who the fans believed in.

You're trying to argue which came first, the chicken or the egg....

I say the Royals could have traded Brett and kept their fan base, as long as they could keep winning....

In Cincy, we got rid of Pete Rose, who I'm sure wasn't any less popular than Brett in his town....we kept drawing fans, because we kept winning...

BigMember · 07-06-2006, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Questdog

You're trying to argue which came first, the chicken or the egg....

I say the Royals could have traded Brett and kept their fan base, as long as they could keep winning....

In Cincy, we got rid of Pete Rose, who I'm sure wasn't any less popular than Brett in his town....we kept drawing fans, because we kept winning...

Man, you are so wrong here. If the Royals would have traded Brett away, there would have been a huge outcry. I can remember these kinds of trade talk fears on talk radio here in KC. No, the Royals would never get rid of Brett. He is still on the team to this day performing duties behind the scene. Comparing a arrogant Rose to the loved Brett is apples and oranges. I mean Rose left his teams, we wouldn't let Brett go for nothing.

Questdog · 07-06-2006, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMember

Man, you are so wrong here. If the Royals would have traded Brett away, there would have been a huge outcry. I can remember these kinds of trade talk fears on talk radio here in KC. No, the Royals would never get rid of Brett. He is still on the team to this day performing duties behind the scene. Comparing a arrogant Rose to the loved Brett is apples and oranges. I mean Rose left his teams, we wouldn't let Brett go for nothing.

Rose was a hometown boy who was NOT arrogant in a 'I'm a better person than you' kind of way....He was brash and confident, but Cincinnati LOVED him, even to this day, with all his troubles....he was a CIncy fixture for 17 years, before he left....if ever there was a player that could take fans with him when he left, it was him....There was all kind of talk to hang the GM and eat his children, but no one quit going to the games...

Renner · 07-06-2006, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMember

Also, look at the Cubs. They went allot of lean years in terms of wins, but they have been sold out every game forever. Why? Maybe cause their fans got to see players like Billy Williams and Ernie Banks play even into years where they should have retired maybe. But the owners saw their worth to the fans and the fans repaid the effort.

I would say the answer why they continue to sell out is because:
1. Wrigley Field and
2. The fact that they have 100+ years of history.

Both are standings-proof reasons for 100% occupancy.

BigMember · 07-06-2006, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Questdog

Rose was a hometown boy who was NOT arrogant in a 'I'm a better person than you' kind of way....He was brash and confident, but Cincinnati LOVED him, even to this day, with all his troubles....he was a CIncy fixture for 17 years, before he left....if ever there was a player that could take fans with him when he left, it was him....There was all kind of talk to hang the GM and eat his children, but no one quit going to the games...

Bottom line my friend is this.......Rose left the Reds. Somehow he, the fans or the owner let him leave. In KC, we wouldn't stand for Brett leaving and never will. It's not the same.

BigMember · 07-06-2006, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renner

I would say the answer why they continue to sell out is because:
1. Wrigley Field and
2. The fact that they have 100+ years of history.

Both are standings-proof reasons for 100% occupancy.

And I already gave my reasons why.......I think mine are right.

BigMember · 07-06-2006, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renner

I would say the answer why they continue to sell out is because:
1. Wrigley Field and
2. The fact that they have 100+ years of history.

Both are standings-proof reasons for 100% occupancy.

Besides, Detroit and the White Sox and Pittsburgh have been around for 100 + years too. They don't sell out like the Cubs.

07-06-2006, 11:02 AM	#42
BigMember Minors (Double A) Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Independence MO Posts: 168	Amos Otis. Like I said before, he was a jerk. He was liked early in his career by fans, but was never liked by players. He was not a team player at all and this was exposed to the fans when he became extremely jealous when Willie Wilson arrived and challenged Otis for the CF spot. Otis wouldn't give up CF and forced the team to play the much faster and better defensive Wilson in LF. After a while the Royals finally told Otis to get over it. He couldn't, so he was gone. Otis also had run ins with fans a few times in the stands and even got in fights with a few players in the clubhouse. No one liked the guy. A buddy of mine even kicked his sons ass at a bowling alley in Blue Springs MO cause he had the same attitude his dad had. Growing up in Blue Springs MO, we lived next to Hal McRae and later Lee May and I got to know them and their kids very well. I played baseball out behind our house all summer for a few years with Lee May Jr and Brian McRae back around 1981 and 1982. Brian even played football with me on the Great Blue Springs Wildcat teams of the 80's. I even got to jog with Lee May and Hal McRae and sons during the strike of 81. I got to talk to them quite a bit and Hal McRae stated a few times as to what a jerk Otis was. No, Otis wasn't as popular as people think. __________________ "Is that my shoe over there? No, that one! Give it to me!"

07-06-2006, 02:03 PM	#50
BigMember Minors (Double A) Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Independence MO Posts: 168	Also, look at the Cubs. They went allot of lean years in terms of wins, but they have been sold out every game forever. Why? Maybe cause their fans got to see players like Billy Williams and Ernie Banks play even into years where they should have retired maybe. But the owners saw their worth to the fans and the fans repaid the effort. __________________ "Is that my shoe over there? No, that one! Give it to me!"