tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24926635.post3328778498442226327..comments2023-06-12T05:47:12.250-07:00Comments on Coyote Squirrel's Random Musings: The Gift of Good Data AnalysisR.A. Porterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14851961356321735388noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24926635.post-35435384740820664832006-09-09T01:58:00.000-07:002006-09-09T01:58:00.000-07:00I was just about to shut down and go to sleep when...I was just about to shut down and go to sleep when I realized I had no context for the NHL attendance numbers...were arenas reconfigured to seat more or fewer patrons (the latter helps increase the number of sell outs the teams can report and seems most common in baseball,) or did something else effect the outlier teams? I don't know dick all about hockey, so I took a gander at the Blues' website. Looks like they were in an ownership transition last year, which might have impacted attendance. Then again, the Blues might just suck.R.A. Porterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14851961356321735388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24926635.post-24195591348752768482006-09-09T01:30:00.000-07:002006-09-09T01:30:00.000-07:00I'll comment further later in the weekend, but I'm...I'll comment further later in the weekend, but I'm worn out after our ridiculously long argument this afternoon. I think it's correct to say that you agree with the authors disregard of tv ratings (whether intentionally excluded or not) and think I'm insane for finding them relevant. Likewise, I think it's idiotic to only look at the fraction of fans who show up for games, ignoring the vast majority whose dollars are indirectly funneled to the teams and leagues (implicitly through advertising revenue, and tv contracts; explicitly through merchandising and pay media like mlb.com and NBA League Pass.)<br /><br />I stand by my point that a theoretical league with 20M fans that stops work and loses 19M fans will still sell out its stadia, but lose revenue over time. I don't know if that league <i>would</i> lose 19M fans...for all I know it would gain 5M when play resumed. What I do know is that Berri, et. al. don't address that.<br /><br />Quick points: From '82 to '06, the average finals rating was 13.22, and the standard deviation 2.95. That 11.3 for the post-strike, post-Jordan finals is within one deviation of the Rockets/Magic in '95. I was a bit worried last night that I'd underestimated the Jordan effect and you're absolutely right to nail me on it. I hope I was clear that I don't think finals/WS ratings are actually useful, but were readily available as a touchstone. I now think I'd have been better served by excluding those numbers entirely.<br /><br />Also, ask and ye shall receive. Here's a <a href="http://www.calweb.com/~richardp/nhlatt.xls">spreadsheet</a> with the pre- and post-lockout attendance numbers for the NHL and the deltas. Here's a direct link to <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2006">ESPN's source data</a>. Note that while they're truly Blue in St. Lou, overall league attendance was up 12K/game. Obviously, comparing national ratings for the years would be pointless as OLN isn't widely available. Comparison of team-by-team numbers for local broadcasts would be the only effective way, I'd think.R.A. Porterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14851961356321735388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24926635.post-34705247234239834082006-09-08T16:09:00.000-07:002006-09-08T16:09:00.000-07:00Oy. You clearly don't have it.
I know for a damn ...Oy. You clearly don't have it.<br /><br />I know for a damn fact that NBA attendance was down 100% during the Fall of 1998. You can look it up. I can take just about any point in time and prove anything I want, even the 1999 NBA finals. You took math, why don't you run the numbers and I would hazard that the 1999 Finals ratings are easily within 2 deviations of the last non-Jordan finals in 94 & 95. The finals weren't televised live/prime-time until 1982.<br /><br />The authors' point is that LONG-TERM, attendance does not seem to be affected labor disputes/work stoppages (at least in baseball).<br /><br />(I'd be interested to see pre/post-lockout attendance for the NHL, but I think that was the point of that lockout--nobody was going/watching the games anyway.)<br /><br />The operative phrase in their analysis is "consumer of sports". <br />Fans who buy tickets and attend games are making a classic supply/demand economic decision--putting their money where their mouth is. TV viewers are mercurial by nature and not making that same conscious economic decisions--they have no monetary stake in watching/not watching. I'm not an economic/math person either, but I'm pretty sure the supply/demand curve breaks when you have an UNLIMITED supply (free TV). Again in the classic sense, free TV is not 'commodified', and you don't know what something is worth if you give it away. The experience of buying a ticket and going to a game has changed the least <br /><br />I can't be sure (because I changed the channel) but I would bet that MSG Game 5 '94 didn't empty out because of OJ, unlike TV viewership did. The point being that TV ratings can be very volatile.<br /><br />When you open the discussion to TV ratings you bring in many many uncontrollable factors--promotion, counter-programming, cable/dish/TV, Al Michaels, preponderance of crappy graphics/John Tesh-penned theme music, and Al Michaels. And to dismiss the Jordan effect is extremely short-sighted--NBC built their entire operation around promoting Jordan's exploits for 8 years--he was the most poular person on the planet for chrissakes.<br /><br />Ah jesus and the comment about 16k being within the margin of error for Nielsen ratings... awesome display of understanding significant sample size.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24926635.post-55267410243678174582006-09-07T22:08:00.000-07:002006-09-07T22:08:00.000-07:00Um...okay. I'm happy with what I wrote, but not so...Um...okay. I'm happy with what I wrote, but not so happy with the formatting. I have gone over the posting four or five times now, and I can't figure out why the leading below the second blockquote is reduced so much. I can only assume it's something goofy in the CSS for the page. <br /><br />That's one of the many prices for using the beta version of blogger.R.A. Porterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14851961356321735388noreply@blogger.com