LeBron has some not nice words regarding Gilbert, Cleveland in GQ

• Commander of Awesome

  

  thedynasty1998;462687 wrote:Those are some very interesting numbers and it would be interesting to compare league wide. I better not say anything more than that in hopes of not being called a troll or being told "stfu".

  
  Oh, well allow me, oh so you are playing dipshit devils advocate again, oh ok STFU troll.
• like_that

  

  enigmaax;462674 wrote:Jordo's original point was that Cleveland is more of a fair weather fanbase.
  
  I chose 1990 as a starting point because the Reds prime was 1990 (won the Series) and it includes Jordo's reference to the 90s Indians.
  
  Cincinnati averaged 26,358 over the 20 years. Their low was 21,579 and their high was 33,003. That range is about 82%-125%.
  
  Cleveland averaged 29,991 over the 20 years. Their low was 12,986 and their high was 42,670.
  That range is about 43%-143%.
  
  Clearly, there are significantly less Cleveland fans at certain times and significantly more at certain times. The Reds attendance doesn't stray nearly as far in either direction whether they are winning or losing and THAT is what determines who is "fair weather".
  
  Same numbers for the last decade:
  Reds: 83%-122% (about the same)
  Indians: 78%-149% (slightly improved with more winning seasons)
  
  Marlins
  93-present (weren't around in 90): 48%-182% (their first two season were really skewed)
  Last decade: 59%-134%

  
  You gotta factor in that at the beginning of the 90's the Tribe was going through 30 years of HORRRIBLE baseball. From 1970-1993 they only had 3 winning seasons, and those winning seasons they were only about 1-3 games over .500. With 162 game seasons, one would think there are better options to spend your money instead of paying for 30 years of losing baseball.
  
  Also, if we are making this a Cincy Vs Cle thing, you can't omit football. IMO football is a bigger indication of whether a city's fans are fair weathered or not. There are only home 8 games in a season, possibly a bit more if they make the playoffs. That is not many games, and gives less of an excuse for fans to miss any games. On top of that we are talking about Ohio, when it gets cold there is absolutely nothing to do. We can give Cincy 1996-1998 when the Browns weren't around, and the numbers still could be in Cleveland's favor. That is pretty pathetic on Cincy's part if you ask me. Even worse, this past season Kroger had to buy tickets for a particular game, and also Ochocinco had to for another game just so the game was not blacked out. During a playoff season there is no excuse for that.
• Commander of Awesome

  

  like_that;462726 wrote:You gotta factor in that at the beginning of the 90's the Tribe was going through 30 years of HORRRIBLE baseball. From 1970-1993 they only had 3 winning seasons, and those winning seasons they were only about 1-3 games over .500. With 162 game seasons, one would think there are better options to spend your money instead of paying for 30 years of losing baseball.
  
  Also, if we are making this a Cincy Vs Cle thing, you can't omit football. IMO football is a bigger indication of whether a city's fans are fair weathered or not. There are only home 8 games in a season, possibly a bit more if they make the playoffs. That is not many games, and gives less of an excuse for fans to miss any games. On top of that we are talking about Ohio, when it gets cold there is absolutely nothing to do. We can give Cincy 1996-1998 when the Browns weren't around, and the numbers still could be in Cleveland's favor. That is pretty pathetic on Cincy's part if you ask me. Even worse, this past season Kroger had to buy tickets for a particular game, and also Ochocinco had to for another game just so the game was not blacked out. During a playoff season there is no excuse for that.

  
  Also the economy will have to factor into this. Cleveland is def worse off than Cincy in the econ department, and we stll out all of our games in a 5 win season with worse weather.
• enigmaax

  like_that;462726 wrote: You gotta factor in that at the beginning of the 90's the Tribe was going through 30 years of HORRRIBLE baseball. From 1970-1993 they only had 3 winning seasons, and those winning seasons they were only about 1-3 games over .500. With 162 game seasons, one would think there are better options to spend your money instead of paying for 30 years of losing baseball.

  No, you don't have to factor that in. THAT is exactly the point being discussed. Fans show up when the team is winning, fans don't show up when they are losing = fair weather fan. You are trying to say, "oh well of course we aren't going to show up when the team is losing". Duh. That was the point. And that makes you a fair weather fan.
  
  For the record, I don't think its a bad thing at all. I'm not going to spend my money on a bad product. I think this argument comes up because people try to act as though their fanbase is great and loyal when in reality, it isn't.
  

  like_that;462726 wrote:Also, if we are making this a Cincy Vs Cle thing, you can't omit football. IMO football is a bigger indication of whether a city's fans are fair weathered or not. There are only home 8 games in a season, possibly a bit more if they make the playoffs. That is not many games, and gives less of an excuse for fans to miss any games. On top of that we are talking about Ohio, when it gets cold there is absolutely nothing to do. We can give Cincy 1996-1998 when the Browns weren't around, and the numbers still could be in Cleveland's favor. That is pretty pathetic on Cincy's part if you ask me. Even worse, this past season Kroger had to buy tickets for a particular game, and also Ochocinco had to for another game just so the game was not blacked out. During a playoff season there is no excuse for that.

  When I picked up on the conversation, people were talking baseball. Bringing football into it would certainly expand the debate, it just wasn't part of the points that I responded to. I believe you would be correct if you looked at the football numbers, but I'm not really interested enough to spend the time on those details. On the other hand, does Cincy football ever really draw? (Honest question, I don't know.)
• enigmaax

  Commander of Awesome;462734 wrote:Also the economy will have to factor into this. Cleveland is def worse off than Cincy in the econ department, and we stll out all of our games in a 5 win season with worse weather.

  
  See, here's the difference between when you say dumb things and do your little "lol...pwn" spiel and when people actually make valid points. Maybe the economy is a factor. But unless you have an economic profile of the fans who attended games, you aren't going to be able to support that point at all.
  
  For example, maybe Cleveland's fanbase is made up primarily of millionaires and the typical Bengals fan works for minimum wage. In that case, the "economy" would more likely negatively impact Bengals fans. Then you also have to consider ticket prices. And you would also have to consider food and parking costs and a number of other economical factors. In absence of any of that data, you are just pulling some stupid line out your ass that really doesn't mean a thing.
• SportsAndLady

  

  enigmaax;462775 wrote:But unless you have an economic profile of the fans who attended games, you aren't going to be able to support that point at all.

  
  Lol shut the fuck up dude..he had a valid point with the economic status, don't make up bullshit like that just to make his point seem invalid.
  
  By your logic, every survey done in the world is flawed? Because if the survey consists of 100,000 people commenting on whether they like apples or oranges better, they'd have to have a profile of all people in the survey to make sure they aren't all a fan of apples?
• enigmaax

  SportsAndLady;462813 wrote:Lol shut the fuck up dude..he had a valid point with the economic status, don't make up bullshit like that just to make his point seem invalid.
  
  By your logic, every survey done in the world is flawed? Because if the survey consists of 100,000 people commenting on whether they like apples or oranges better, they'd have to have a profile of all people in the survey to make sure they aren't all a fan of apples?

  
  So in your example, you'd qualify your survey with something. Were your people from the south, the west, from a certain state, country, etc. If you were trying to determine which fruit is more highly regarded in Florida, you wouldn't ask 100,000 people not from Florida. Or, if you were trying to determine America's favorite fruit, you wouldn't limit your survey to just people in a state whose main crop is oranges. And those details are important to the validity of the survey.
  
  COA essentially said that Cleveland's economy is worse than Cincinnati's so more people should go to games in Cincinnati. Not everyone in either city is a sports fan. The economy isn't the cause for their non-attendance. So before you begin, you have to look at who is/would go to games and then determine why they are not going to games. If fans who used to go are no longer going because they don't have the money, then you might have a point. If people aren't going just because they've never been interested in football, then the economy has nothing to do with the discussion.
  
  I mean, I could point out 100 homeless people in Cincinnati and 100 rich people in Cleveland to you and say, see, Cleveland should have better attendance because they have more rich people. Does that make it a fact?
• KR1245

  

  like_that;462457 wrote:Seriously, you can't read the thread and understand? I will try to number it for you:
  
  1. We argued the Tribe had better attendance this decade, but Jordo whined and said it wasn't fair, because the reds opened their new stadium in 2003. Why should it matter? Well because it helps his argument out better. So, we gave it to him even though attendance numbers are always elevated for a few years after opening a new stadium.
  
  2. Even after starting at 2003, Cleveland still had better attendance in 4 seasons vs the reds 3 seasons.
  
  Note: Keep in mind he said Tribe fans are amongst the worst out there. They are in the same group as Marlins fans, the worst fans in the MLB.
  
  3. After being proven wrong, he states the reds have had a higher overall average since 2003. Of course we have to play by his rules after being proven wrong again.
  
  4. Even with a stadium that is only 7 years old, the reds still only averaged 1,741 fans than Cleveland.
  
  So, consider the facts of the whole argument.
  
  -The reds opened a brand new stadium in 2003 (which still shouldn't matter but we give it to him)
  -Even after opening they average a small number more than Cleveland
  -Cleveland also had better attendance in 4 seasons vs the reds 3 seasons
  -He said we are amongst the worst fans in the MLB, same group as the Marlins.
  
  The fact that he said we are amongst the worst fans in the mlb and in the same group of the marlins makes him wrong. If he is going to make such asinine claims, the argument shouldn't even be close. I am sure this will go over your head though.

  
  Exactly. Only reason I took issue with Jordos comments was because he compared the Indians fanbase to that of the Marlins. Thats simply not true. I dont understand how a person can make that statement after seeing the numbers. Its not like the Reds are selling out every game like the Sox or Yanks. Indians had a higher average in 4 of the 7 years. Thats the only point I was trying to make.
• jordo212000

  

  like_that;462107 wrote: and still only averaged 1,741 than Cleveland is a joke.

  
  You do realize this stat is PER GAME. Multiply that number by 81 to get the real weight of that stat. The Reds have averaged 141,000 more fans person season since 2003.
• KR1245

  

  jordo212000;462894 wrote:You do realize this stat is PER GAME. Multiply that number by 81 to get the real weight of that stat. The Reds have averaged 141,000 more fans person season since 2003.

  
  Fair enough. You dont have to go back too far before the Indians would catch the Reds in total attendance. 2003 helps your argument, I cant deny that.
  
  You cant deny that the Indians have had better average attendance in 4 of the past 7 years.
  You have a first place team and still ranked 20th in attendance.
  Year the Tribe opened the Jake the average attendance was 39,121. Reds attendance in 03 was 29,077
• jordo212000

  

  KR1245;462917 wrote:Fair enough. You dont have to go back too far before the Indians would catch the Reds in total attendance. 2003 helps your argument, I cant deny that.
  
  You cant deny that the Indians have had better average attendance in 4 of the past 7 years.
  You have a first place team and still ranked 20th in attendance.
  Year the Tribe opened the Jake the average attendance was 39,121. Reds attendance in 03 was 29,077

  
  True. I guess we could both cherry pick stats to suit our argument. I just picked 2003 because that was the year the Reds had an actual big league ballpark. Cinergy Field was a dump near the end of its run.