Another Oakland A's thread. But this one is different, I tell you!

[Déjà Bru]

Sorry, you forum purists, but I am making yet another thread about the Oakland Athletics. The reason for this is, the approach is not about whether the A's will move to Las Vegas, but why there has been a baseball franchise in Oakland to begin with.

I am stirring up a hornets nest here — fans of teams of both cities are likely to clobber me — but when I read this headline, I finally lost patience and went to do some research.



The San Francisco Bay Area is host to a team in every major sport. But only one team per sport, with the exception of the Giants and the Athletics.



The distance from Oakland to San Francisco is only about 8 miles or so. Sure, there is a body of water between them but there is also a trusty bridge.



Now, you say "Shut up, Bruce. You live in New Yawk where there are two teams for everything!" True. However, take a look at this:



The New York Metropolitan Area is between four and five times the size of San Francisco-Oakland. Here, two teams in each sport works. There, it does not.

I would submit that the same was true back in 1968 when the Athletics moved from Kansas City to the Bay Area. And they have always struggled with attendance. Here is the record just for the past 25 years; only three times did they rank in the top half of league attendance (barely):



I don't know. I am trying to avoid saying "What were they thinking?" back in 1968 when team owners approved the moved to Oakland.

Looking back at that list of metropolitan areas and thinking in terms of over 50 years ago, maybe the other areas were "full up" in terms of the one or two teams they could support. Other areas like Charlotte and Las Vegas were still backwaters (I exaggerate, but still).

The Athletics probably would have been better off staying in Kansas City but they consistently stunk so bad, their stands would been have empty even as the only franchise in New York. That was on team ownership and management, though.

My point is this: There are now so many vibrant, growing metropolitan areas flush with bodies and cash and hungry for sports that for the Athletics to be allowed to stay in Oakland would be exceedingly foolish. Even if the team decided to stay, MLB ought to yank the franchise and move it to someplace that will adequately support it.

Now, you say "Shut up, Bruce. You would be looking for a noose if the Yankees left town for whatever reason." Well, I wouldn't kill myself but I would mourn. But after a while, I would shift my attention to the Mets and eventually ... eventually ... be happy. I do hope that it would be the Mets to leave town instead, if it had to come to that.

[Syd Thrift]

I know Charlie O wanted to move to Seattle but one look at Sicks Stadium made him reconsider. At that time, maybe Denver would have been viable but they also had I think an ABA team in the Big Four so were a wild card as well. Oakland had an existing stadium and played in a top 6 market. It made sense at the time even if it never really worked out.

[Marinersfan51]

From 1989-1992 they were 2nd-2nd-3rd-4th in the AL in attendance, baseball in Oakland was viable until 1995 when the owner Walter Haas died and the team got sold. That also coincided with the Oakland Colosseum getting remodeled to lure the Raiders back and it being turned into the abomination you see today. Under Haas's ownership the A's were running top 5 payrolls, having top 5 attendances, and contending for world series. As soon as he passed and the team got sold to Steven Schott and then John Fisher they have consistently had a bottom 5 payroll and middling to poor attendance. It isn't an Oakland problem, it's an ownership problem. MLB has no interest in trying to fix that though, because they would rather have 30 John Fishers than multiple Steve Cohens.

As Syd Thrift pointed out, the reason they are in Oakland in the first place is just because they already had a stadium when Finley wanted to get out of KC.

Obviously you would never put a team in Oakland now if there wasn't already one there, but as long as John Fisher owns the team, it is insane to think moving to Vegas will do anything to change the dumpster fire they have become.

[kq76]

The San Francisco area is very expensive with presumably a lot of well off people (Oakland not so much I'm sure, but close enough I suppose). It's not all about population, money obviously has a huge part in it too. I'm sure LGO can show us some #s to do with other market factors that would not only show the bay area as deserving of so many teams back in the day, but maybe even why maybe it still should.

I do wonder if the San Francisco area may have still been seen as a growing market back in 1968. Some may not realize that until around the 1920s, when LA finally surpassed it, San Francisco actually had the most population on the US west coast. KC wasn't working out so why not try their luck out west in California like so many others had before them. At the time Milwaukee had the most population of any city that didn't have a team, but the Braves had just moved from there a couple years ago in 1966 so obviously that market wasn't seen as very promising. A good argument could have been made for Dallas, but maybe California was just way more appealing to Finley than Texas was.

I did see this in Finley's wikipedia page:

Finley also repeatedly tried to move the team. In January 1964 he reached an agreement with Louisville, Kentucky to move the team there for the 1964 season, signing a two year lease on a stadium. When that proposed move was blocked by the American League he entertained offers from Denver and San Diego.

He may have just wanted to get out of Kansas City to anywhere the other owners would let him go. And since the Rangers came to the Dallas area in 1972, they may have blocked his move to there as well as they probably already had their eye on it. I seem to remember he was disliked by a lot of the owners for some reason.

[monkeyman576]

When Major League Baseball (MLB) moved the Athletics (A's) from Philadelphia to Oakland in 1968, Oakland was seen as an attractive city for a few reasons:

Growing population and economy: Oakland was experiencing significant population growth and economic development in the 1960s. The city's location in the San Francisco Bay Area made it an attractive place for businesses and people to relocate.

Modern facilities: The Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, which was built in 1966, was one of the most modern and spacious stadiums in the country at the time. It had seating capacity for more than 50,000 fans, which made it a desirable location for a major league team.

West Coast expansion: MLB was looking to expand to the West Coast to tap into the growing population and fan base there. The move of the A's to Oakland was part of that strategy, which also included the expansion of the Los Angeles Angels and the Houston Astros to the American League in 1961 and 1962, respectively.

Financial incentives: The City of Oakland and Alameda County offered financial incentives to lure the A's to the city. The local government agreed to pay for a portion of the construction costs for the Coliseum and offered tax breaks and other incentives to the team.

Overall, Oakland's growing population and economy, modern facilities, strategic location, and financial incentives made it an attractive destination for the A's when they moved from Philadelphia. --- Chat GPT

[Cobra Mgr]

You can't look @ the population now. You have to look at the population when the teams were established. Example: St.Louis once had 2 teams. Cause when the Browns moved there St.Louis had a larger population than Boston. They ranked 4th.

So when the A's moved to the Bay area, that metro was the 6th largest. And the Angels were the only AL team west of Minnesota. Therefore, it made it more economical for the rest of the AL on trips to the Pacific to have more than one team to play that distance. And evidently Oakland had become the "IT" destination at the time. Cause not only did the A's move there in '68 but so did the Warriors. And the Raiders were in the SB that year.

[monkeyman576]

1968 Populations:
New York City (Yankees and Mets): 7,781,984
Chicago (Cubs and White Sox): 3,550,404
Los Angeles (Dodgers and Angels): 2,479,015
Philadelphia (Phillies): 2,002,512
Detroit (Tigers): 1,670,144
Baltimore (Orioles): 939,024
Boston (Red Sox): 638,479
Houston (Astros): 938,219
San Francisco (Giants): 715,674
Pittsburgh (Pirates): 529,144
Cincinnati (Reds): 452,512
St. Louis (Cardinals): 622,236
Cleveland (Indians): 751,903
Minneapolis (Twins): 382,618
Washington, D.C. (Senators): 763,956
Oakland (Athletics): 361,561 -- Chat GPT

[kq76]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

When Major League Baseball (MLB) moved the Athletics (A's) from Philadelphia to Oakland in 1968, Oakland was seen as an attractive city for a few reasons:

Growing population and economy: Oakland was experiencing significant population growth and economic development in the 1960s. The city's location in the San Francisco Bay Area made it an attractive place for businesses and people to relocate.

Modern facilities: The Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, which was built in 1966, was one of the most modern and spacious stadiums in the country at the time. It had seating capacity for more than 50,000 fans, which made it a desirable location for a major league team.

West Coast expansion: MLB was looking to expand to the West Coast to tap into the growing population and fan base there. The move of the A's to Oakland was part of that strategy, which also included the expansion of the Los Angeles Angels and the Houston Astros to the American League in 1961 and 1962, respectively.

Financial incentives: The City of Oakland and Alameda County offered financial incentives to lure the A's to the city. The local government agreed to pay for a portion of the construction costs for the Coliseum and offered tax breaks and other incentives to the team.

Overall, Oakland's growing population and economy, modern facilities, strategic location, and financial incentives made it an attractive destination for the A's when they moved from Philadelphia. --- Chat GPT

LOL, good job ChatGPT. You got where they moved from wrong, twice. What else did you get it wrong?

[monkeyman576]

It's probably because I didn't mention Kansas City. But they should have caught that yes.

[kq76]

The interesting thing is ChatGPT reads very convincingly, like it's written by someone you should trust, but when you actually examine the details of what it says, it's often wrong.

[monkeyman576]

Originally Posted by kq76

The interesting thing is ChatGPT reads very convincingly, like it's written by someone you should trust, but when you actually examine the details of what it says, it's often wrong.

Yeah, you can't take everything it says for granted, but its's a fun tool.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Now, you say "Shut up, Bruce. You live in New Yawk where there are two teams for everything!" True. However, take a look at this:

Attachment 946451

The New York Metropolitan Area is between four and five times the size of San Francisco-Oakland. Here, two teams in each sport works. There, it does not.

The New York metropolitan area used to have three MLB teams (Dodgers, Giants, and Yankees). It has had three NHL teams for over forty years (Islanders, Rangers, and Devils).

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

I would submit that the same was true back in 1968 when the Athletics moved from Kansas City to the Bay Area.

Let's look at the economic capacity of the metropolitan areas measured by taking the population and multiplying it by the per capita income. Population values are from the Census Bureau, and per capita income from the BEA. Here are the top 25 metropolitan statistical areas in 1969 (the earliest year for which there are per capita income figures). The smallest area with an MLB team is assigned a value of 100 and all other areas scaled accordingly. The ratings for 1969 and 2010 are shown, to illustrate the degree to which some areas grew or shrank relative to the others.

Metropolitan Statistical Area                         1969   2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA    1478   1542
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA                   706    841
Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI                    646    630
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD            396    422
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI                             358    246
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH                         303    379
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA                      284    386
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV           260    482
Pittsburgh, PA                                         186    151
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH                            182    126
St. Louis, MO-IL                                       178    175
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX                        170    396
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL                165    349
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI                156    231
Baltimore-Towson, MD                                   148    200
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX                         147    394
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA                            144    254
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA                     121    304
Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN                        115    127
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI                      107    100
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA                      102    212
Kansas City, MO-KS                                     100    127
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY                               94     65
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA                92    100
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA                      89    158

Under this economic measure, Kansas City was the smallest area with a major league team from 1969 through 1976; from 1977 onward, Milwaukee has been the smallest.

The largest areas without a major league team in 1969 were Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington (170), Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach (165), and Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis (107). Milwaukee received the relocated Pilots in 1970, while Dallas-Fort Worth got the relocated Senators in 1972.

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

And they have always struggled with attendance. Here is the record just for the past 25 years; only three times did they rank in the top half of league attendance (barely):

Here is a comparison of the attendance for Oakland and San Francisco in the Pacific Coast League. The attendance rank is in parentheses. Note that Oakland relocated to Vancouver after the 1955 season.

Year    Oakland       San Fran.
----------------------------------
1946    634,311 (2)    670,563 (1)
1947    590,327 (3)    640,643 (1)
1948    552,072 (3)    606,563 (1)
1949    534,711 (2)    447,022 (6)
1950    491,732 (2)    377,274 (5)
1951    193,822 (8)    199,083 (7)
1952    234,592 (6)    198,778 (7)
1953    135,784 (8)    175,459 (6)
1954    201,922 (5)    298,908 (1)
1955    141,397 (8)    161,570 (7)
----------------------------------
Total 3,710,670      3,775,863

In terms of attendance, the two are quite similar.


A comparison of attendance for Oakland and San Francisco for 1968 through 1987, representing the first twenty seasons of the A's in Oakland.

Year     Oakland    San Fran.
----------------------------
1968     837,466     837,220
1969     778,232     873,603
1970     778,355     740,720
1971     914,993   1,106,043
1972     921,323     647,744
1973   1,000,763     834,193
1974     845,693     519,897
1975   1,075,518     522,919
1976     780,593     626,868
1977     495,599     700,056
1978     526,999   1,740,477
1979     306,763   1,456,967
1980     842,259   1,096,115
1981   1,304,052     632,274
1982   1,735,489   1,200,948
1983   1,294,941   1,251,530
1984   1,353,281   1,001,545
1985   1,334,599     818,697
1986   1,314,646   1,528,748
1987   1,678,921   1,917,168
----------------------------
Total 20,120,485  20,053,732

Again, the attendance of the two is quite similar. Even with the three terrible seasons from 1977–79 (63-98, 69-93, and 54-108), Oakland still managed to actually draw slightly more fans over its first twenty seasons than did San Francisco.

Clearly, from this data, Oakland as a major league club location was entirely reasonable, and was competitive with its rival across the bay in terms of getting people to attend its games.

It is at some point after 1987 that its fortunes began to decline.

[Cobra Mgr]

You guys got me falling down the rabbit hole on historical populations.

1900 LA ranked 36th in the country in population. Behind Allegheny, PA, Falls River, MA, Patterson, NJ & Omaha, NE.

But this ain't about that. Carry on................

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The New York metropolitan area used to have three MLB teams (Dodgers, Giants, and Yankees). It has had...................

Good stuff. Nice research.

[monkeyman576]

Actually the last team to have an expansion team in any California city was the San Jose Sharks in 1993, not including hockey, the last California expansion team was the Los Angeles Angels in 1961. So there was a rush of teams to California in a 15 year period or so, but really the market for teams there has been cooling for some time.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

Actually the last team to have an expansion team in any California city was the San Jose Sharks in 1993, not including hockey, the last California expansion team was the Los Angeles Angels in 1961. So there was a rush of teams to California in a 15 year period or so, but really the market for teams there has been cooling for some time.

In the past, the A's have talked about moving to San Jose, but the issue there is that San Jose has been designated as part of San Francisco's territory, so the A's can't move there unless the Giants agree.

[rudel.dietrich]

I have heard from people who live there that the 49ers decision was mind-boggling and that stadium is not convenient for anyone to get to.

I know we are not talking about that. But the map in the OP made me realize how weird the 49ers stadium location is.

[ThatSeventiesGuy]

They almost moved to Louisville, an even smaller market, a few years earlier. So apparently market size wasn't quite as big a deal back in the '60s.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by ThatSeventiesGuy

They almost moved to Louisville, an even smaller market, a few years earlier. So apparently market size wasn't quite as big a deal back in the '60s.

Louisville would rank as a 64 size market in 1969, the 38th largest in the country at the time. There were 17 metropolitan areas without major league teams ahead of it.

I expect had it moved to Louisville it probably would not have lasted long there.

[monkeyman576]

I don't know some teams are successful in small markets, like the Portland Trailblazers and the Milwaukee Brewers.

I'm surprised Calgary isn't considered for other teams with a 1.3 Million population.