332

With bread lines ebbing and early expectations exceeded between baseball's white lines, Derrick Hall's marketing juggernaut can already grab credit for two more yummy superlatives.

-- Lowest attended Saturday game in club history (20,719)

-- Lowest attended Sunday game (19,718)

That powerful but mysterious All Star attraction we've heard tell of must, somehow, be discouraging sales. Or Opening weekend. Or the Reds arent any good. Or the fact popular ASU alum Mike Leake started on Sunday.

The previous Saturday low (21,627) was last July against the Marlins. Nick Piecoro reported the Sunday draw and I havent bothered to check the previous mark yet. But Saturday's crowd approached a thousand fewer than the earlier trough, which provides a preliminary glimpse into season ticket force.

We can now be all but certain that the base of full package season ticket holders is considerably less than 2010, the previous nadir, and which represents an astonishing decline given the All Star Game carrot.

Partial packages, which convey a watered down form of ASG priority, are a separate story and harder to estimate. These are folded into an aggregate called FSEs(Full Season Equivalents). Most, if not all, partials include home opener access, and judging from that game's attendance compared to last year, FSEs may be relatively flat, although I still suspect they're down a fair amount, since this year's opener fortuitously fell on a Friday night. 

But full packages are decimated.  We know that from Saturday and Sunday, when those partial pack holders, who went to the Opener, start to distribute attendance more in line with their customized ticket plans.  Full packages already hit a new low in 2010 and have clearly dropped further.

We previously noted the club raised prices on season ticket holders in all but the most lavish locations. Eleven of the venue's sixteen pricepoints increased. Small hikes on a per game basis, but the damage for a bleacher bum and a guest (who buys one season ticket?), or a couple in the upper tier, across the full schedule, rose $332.

You wont hear about it on FSN or in The Republic, but as paltry crowds become more and more evident, and assorted jackwagons throw in their two cents anywhere but at the Chase Field box office, it's something to keep in mind.

Ball Back, Spring Ahead

Reservations and what amount to advance cover charges to Casino Lounge West are reportedly disappearing as fast as a $20 bill down the street, but betting on baseball fans to attend actual Diamondback games downtown, remains more of a long shot. This surmised from snips of Derrick Hall's painstakingly leading statements, and neither comes as much surprise.

The Cactus League's latest bauble, wedged just west of its benefactor's gambling palace and east of Paradise Valley, is bound to draw its target clientele; Derrick Hall's wealthy neighbors.

thrilling climax and denouement >>>

Dbacks Draw 126,000 For Sunday Finale

A record crowd of 126,112 attended Sunday's season finale at Chase Field against the Dodgers, according to CEO/President Derrick Hall.

It is the largest Arizona crowd to witness a sporting event since the third round of the 2006 Phoenix Open at TPC, and the highest attended event ever at Chase Field, which reports a capacity for baseball of 48,295.


"Standing room", explained Hall. "It surprised even us."

The record throng in the half empty stadium enabled the Diamondbacks to barely escape another seasonal low water mark for paid attendance, in what has been a humiliating year on the field, in the stands, on the road, against left handed pitching, across local, national and international political controversies, and against batters.

"Thank goodness for large unconfirmed group sales" said Hall. "This proves we have momentum and are on the right track. Drawing less than 2 million, especially after the Yankees visit, would not have established this kind of momentum. We're very excited about these numbers. And proud"

Previously, the largest Chase Field crowd occured on December 30th, 1999 when 82,450 attended a Rod Parsley miracle and healing service.

Dback Tix Unreasonable, Says Scottish Authority

After defending MLB's most regressive ticket pricing model for half a decade, Sir Jim McLennan decided, on Thursday apparently, that Arizona Diamondback tickets are too high.

"... the [price] gap has grown to the point that it has often been cheaper to buy a season ticket holder's unwanted seats on the secondary market, rather than from the ticket-office.

I'd also like to see dropping of single-game prices."

A glacial reckoning, considering these price gaps grew most between 2005-2007 - and were actually larger three years ago in many areas of Chase Field than they are today. What will intrepid Jim warn us of tomorrow? Leasing office space in the World Trade Center?

But all's well that ends well, I suppose, and it appears our 'pit boss recognizes and is even ready to tackle "the attendance problem", co-opting several suggestions he spent years dismissing when voiced by "undesirables":

I'd like to see the team get a bit more creative with regard to enticing fans back to the ballpark... I would love a deal with the light rail, whereby a Diamondbacks ticket is also valid for a ride to/from the park... I'd also like to see dropping of single-game prices....There's nothing like a full stadium.... hopefully it's something which we will see more of in the future.

Sound familiar? What happened to pronouncements it would take a generation, at least, before any FO could consistently draw more fans here? And how can one credibly complain about single game rates and fees and premium pricing today, after consistently endorsing Derrick Hall's "lowest prices in baseball" mantra since 2007?

Endless Summer

• On a day Carlos Gonzalez hit two home runs, and Edwin Jackson solidified the White Sox' hold on first place, the Dbacks lost to the Washington Nationals, before the smallest crowd (15670) in Chase Field history. Eight of the nine smallest crowds in franchise history have now materialized in the last few months.
  


• At the two thirds mark, Arizona is on pace to lose 102 games. They should finish better than that, but are sixteen games out. Not from first place. Sixteen games from fourth place. Looking ahead, Dan Haren and Max Scherzer try to propel contending teams forward. Followed by tomorrow, and the next day...and the next.
  


• Update 8/6: Haren yielded ten hits last night and hasnt won for the Angels yet - despite an ERA under three.

Like our Dbacks, San Diego is unseasonably cool this summer, and it feels good. A thick marine layer lingers past noon most days, affording longer, brisker walks with the wife, without the usual bake and sweat. In the afternoons, our son and I body surf in the Pacific with the occasional "dolphin". They're thirty yards out, with large dorsal fins and the real estate agents all call them dolphins. Whatever. I'll be home Saturday, swimming safely with accumulated carob leaves in my own backyard pool.

More On Salary Dumps


I dont object to redistributing 2011 payroll. I have a problem reducing our chances of contending - and I think you do that swapping Haren and Ed Jackson for Joe Saunders and Hudson, even if some money can be applied elsewhere. It's almost as if the Dbacks thought process was as follows:

1. Our biggest competitive liability is pitching.
2. Haren and Jackson represent our largest financial liability among pitchers.
3. Neither Haren nor Jackson were good 2010 values.
4. Therefore, trading Haren and Jackson makes us more efficient (ie dedicated payroll) and flexible (future expenditures).

But failure to meet 2010 expectations doesnt resign either workhorse to fall short of 2011 expectations or preclude either from being an attractive contractual value going forward. Both are recent All Stars. Haren's got a high BABIP and strong peripherals, suggesting he could enjoy a significant "comeback" year. Jackson is more erratic, but a terrific athlete with a powerful, durable arm.

We didnt need to dump their contracts. We needed to optimize their talents by dumping organizational obstacles; namely a toxic manager, a subpar defensive catching tandem, immature offense, below average defense and a disturbingly ineffective pitching coach. Haren and Jackson were underutilized (if not outright squandered) by a dysfunctional organization.

If their careers deteriorate, Saunders maintains and Hudson develops, it'll be fortuitous - but if Haren recaptures most or all of his consistent mojo, he's virtually irreplaceable at $12M on the open market. Guys who throw 200 innings at 30% above league average run prevention are valuable and rare.

• Finally, welcome to four new readers who just dont get it, inexplicably voting for Joe Saunders in our latest poll! Friendly reminder: Diamondhacks is a haven from that sort of thing.
  

About Town

• Derrick Hall's working overtime, preempting chatter that the looming Haren deal is a rebuild or salary dump. I would feel better if he was working overtime actually ensuring the sort of "A+" deal he's publicly fantasized about. Or working at something he's more experienced at - like looking really concerned when a spectator is hit with a foul ball.

• Sweeping the Mets was nice, prompting someone named Cash Kruth over at mlb.com, to call Arizona one of the hottest teams in baseball. According to Bill James' formula, the Mets sweep made us the tenth hottest team in the NL, tied with Pittsburgh. You decide.

• The Diamondbacks dipped below the 2 million attendance pace tonight, for the first time this season. Not an easy thing to do on a Friday night.

• Is Gibby turning it around? It's too early to tell, but the answer is No.

• Back to Haren. Is the goal for next year to merely "get better" or is it go to the playoffs? An important distinction when this year's team projects to lose 95 to 100 games. You can get better than that just by breathing, cant you? Cobble together a cheap, merely bad bullpen. That's a huge improvement right there. Spend a couple hundred thousand on any pitching coach not named Mel. Why, you've skyrocketed up to 75 wins.

Going to the playoffs is harder, and the question becomes, Are you more likely to do that with Dan Haren or a staff anchored by people you get in exchange for Dan Haren?

It can go either way, but the key word above is "likely"and the short answer is "Haren." I'm off to San Diego for a couple weeks, so the long answer will have to wait, but basically the Diamondbacks' primary impetus for this trade is not to get better in 2011. They'd like to get better and will try to get better, certainly, but the driving factor in all this is that they'd prefer not to pay Dan Haren. The driving factor of the opposite clubs, like the Yankees, is winning. Neither bodes well for Arizona's contending chances in 2011.

• In local news, the valley's largest body of water vanished a couple nights ago. Seriously, a billion gallons...gone. Whoosh.

I hope the same cant be said of 2011.

The Times, They Are A Fakin'

Josh Byrnes, last week in The NY Times:

In a market like ours, we have to be disciplined with managing our payroll...

Market not only implies disadvantage, but an external, static handicap beyond franchise control. To be fair, he's talking to a New York reporter, covering the biggest, most lucrative market in the sport, but for an articulate spokesman like Byrnes, there probably are more accurate nouns than "market" at his disposal.

ESPN.com's Rob Neyer picked up on this. Here's his response to that portion of the Byrnes interview:

I'm not exactly sure what Byrnes means when he references "a market like ours" as if that were a bad thing. Last year the Phoenix metropolitan area was the 12th most populous in the United States, and growing incredibly quickly (sure it's a desert, but land is cheap and people are incredibly short-sighted); within a year or two, the region will break into the top 10.

Maybe the corporate support isn't there and maybe retirees won't pay top dollar for tickets and the people are definitely not concentrated within 20 minutes of the ballpark. But the Diamondbacks do not have a population problem.

Neyer's not exactly right either. There's conflicting evidence as to whether Phoenix is growing at all right now. It's certainly not growing incredibly quickly, like it has for a long time. But it's a substantial, spread out metro. The spread out challenge has been mitigated by improved freeways and signature light rail.

Corporate support has dwindled due to the economy and waning baseball utility. The Diamondbacks predictably responded by going where the money is, much like bank robber Willie Sutton, and heavily tied their enterprise to casino interests. As far as paying "top dollar" for tickets, the expensive box seats at Chase Field dont drive the vacancy issue. It's the mid to low range seats that Phoenicians feel are too high.

So, if selling your most expensive seats arent a real problem, and eager casinos are bankrolling your new stadium and half of what's in the old one, is it really "the market" disciplining your payroll? Relative to New York? Yes. Relative to most other MLB cities? Probably not. If fans arent buying enough tickets, can it really be tied to "market" if Colangelo sold substantially more tickets - to a younger, smaller metropolis with inferior public transport?

What's disciplining payroll isnt "market" nearly so much as "budget", which implies similar disadvantage, but not nearly the same determinism. A budget is a dynamic function of external and internal considerations. Ownership discretion and input are clearly implied, as are financial pressures stemming from a variety of internal actions, like bad contracts and fielding barely competitive teams.



The thrust of organizational advocacy is to make your boss look good. If you cant make him look good, like on the field, then you at least try to make him sound good in the papers. That's what this is about. Subtlely deflecting responsibility from Josh's bosses, and frankly, from himself.

As Neyer indicated, the Diamondbacks dont suffer from particularly unusual external challenges. It's an internal credibility issue that plagues them, that by dancing around with The New York Times, is becoming more "external" every day.

Corridors of Change

Some years ago, the Yankees visited town for a set. An average of 48,200 inhabited BOB's rafters. It wasnt the World Series. It was 2004, amid a most trying season when they dropped 111 games.

Fast forward six years, to a metro Phoenix at least ten percent larger, serviced by a popular light rail system that whooshes by the stadium entrance every seven minutes or so. Colangelo's inheritors have, for years, insisted they proffer the lowest prices in baseball. And into this accessible bargain basement march the defending world champs, baseball's rock star roadies.

We only average 46 and change, on the rising tide of these Gotham gushers. Energetic crowds, who enjoyed an entertaining, closely contested series. But never has the ballpark on Jefferson been so overrun by alien foes of humanity (excluding in-game host "Mike" and one Trace Adkins concert).

At least we didnt hear claims of a sellout, as we so often do from Derrick Hall, when thousands of his most loyal, valued chameleons instinctively dress as dark green, hard molded plastic seats. Did he simply forget to bend the truth this time? More likely, he's too busy orchestrating a far bigger sellout, as his Dream Team feverishly co-opts a history they strategically discounted for half a decade.

They methodically demonized the father of that history, in the papers and on TV, even after they fired him. They blasted his business acumen and ethics. They snickered at his out of date, paternalistic culture. They denigrated the stadium only he was able to realize and from which they now hold court. They obliterated any vestige of brand continuity and the uniforms of a World Series champion. They not so casually denigrated fans' two irreplaceable heroes, Luis Gonzalez and Randy Johnson. And they denigrated fans themselves, chastising Phoenix for not supporting second and third rate teams and for not understanding the game or the daunting onus of keeping a franchise afloat in what they've disingenuously painted as an unusually challenged market.

Under the stands, there's a corridor, between the dugout and the clubhouse, through which all Diamondbacks pass. After practices, losses, wins. Even championships. One of the walls was purple and players wrote stuff on it. Left their personal marks for posterity, year after year. It was the players' wall and became a sentimental connection for some, between each other and between their ephemeral athletic selves and the concrete permanance of a stadium and a franchise.

Yes, the usurpers painted it over. Sedona Red. It sounds like a small thing, a petty thing to do or even to get upset about. Nonetheless, a startlingly tone deaf and unnecessary directive, with significant repurcussions. More important than the act itself was the indelible knowledge that a new leadership team would even want to do something like that.

It's not the only reason players here have been looking over their shoulders, and looking out for themselves, ever since. But it's one of many slights, triggering a toxic and ongoing disconnect between Kendrick/Moorad era management and players. When management casually disregards players feelings and paints over their little piece of immortality, players tend to perform with all the heart of a contractor or temporary worker.

A more recent, tone deaf directive was the shockingly insular hire of AJ Hinch. Same ivory tower disregard for player input or feelings. Same resulting morale issues. Same "inexplicably" discouraging results.

I guess the easy metaphor is about walls, of which there are now so many, stifling this organization. But the resonant metaphor, especially now, is really about painting things over. Kendrick, Moorad and MLB didnt just oust Colangelo to realize a better rate of return. Kendrick, in particular, was so angry at Jerry's spending that he felt compelled to paint over - literally and figuratively - the very creation and accomplishment that the spending brought.

Unfortunately for him, the creation he systematically obscured, to get back at Jerry, was the creation this city identified with, more than anything he's managed to create on his own terms, since. It must be an extraordinarily bitter pill for Kendrick, not just because he strutted around for years about how he was going to outperform Colangelo on the field, but moreso because Kendrick himself quietly funded a good chunk of the inaugural success.

After failing to field more than one team that outscored it's competition (barely), in six tries, the artist formerly known as Pious Earl has his paint brush out again. With another season and the fanbase escaping him daily, Kendrick has instructed his minions to suddenly embrace the purple past, with a frenzied lack of subtlety for which they are justly famous. Perhaps we'll explore the gaudy limits of this strategic deflection at a later date, after we've caught our breath and stopped holding our sides from laughter.

What's important to note for now, is that even the transparent dolts at azcentral.com see right through this similarly transparent charade. You cant obscure and obliterate the past at every turn for half a decade, then use that same past to suddenly obscure your unpalatable present. Well, I suppose you can try. These are, after all, people with a comically low opinion of their customers. They can continue to brush all they want, but that underlying contempt for fans hasnt changed, and will require more than another coat of paint.

One Week In

There's a tendency to overproject, good and bad, during the first week. Dan Haren got lit up like the Eiffel Tower at the millenium. Chris Young briefly wrested the NL's RBI lead from Albert Pujols and Kelly Johnson's on pace to knock 81 homers. Even Mark McClune conducted a palatable sideline interview.

More sustainably, Miggy Montero's out for a couple months after feeling a pop on his way to first base. He sustained a torn knee meniscus, however the hurt to the team is unclear, as Snyder's the superior glove, and had five RBI's on Sunday. This season's more balanced offense may better absorb the loss of Montero's bat. Snyder's main drawback, really, is he wears his emotions and is not much of an organizational advocate. You could see the blood drain from his face when Hinch was installed, and they've wanted to get rid of him ever since. Now, they need him and will talk about what a pro he is. Incidentally, base stealers are eight for eight against Miggy and Snides so far.

Over the weekend, our Sedona Reds set a franchise attendance low for a Saturday game - 22,400. I mentioned my bit of b-ref research on azcentral.com and, alas, didnt win many friends. Even fewer, when I piled on with the next day's gate (21,093) - the all time franchise low for a Sunday. Besides me, the Sedona Redheads blamed NASCAR and the Pirates. If only they knew the Padres finale was our franchise low (17,673) for a Wednesday!

Not sure exactly what it means yet, in terms of walk up versus other sales, but these are early indications that the season ticket base may be its smallest in thirteen years. Which should give acolytes, who buy the FO mantra about the lowest prices in baseball, pause. Maybe you buy the mantra, but you sure as hell arent buying Derrick Hall's incredibly affordable tickets to watch this ascendant team you adore. Or there arent very many of you. Maybe if Hall and Kendrick provided tangible value to a wider array of fans, instead of bloviating hollow, misleading mantras, their historic and categorical inability to draw valley fans wouldnt be so pronounced.

While Kendrick and Hall established their tangible Wednesday "record" downtown, I attended the A's game on the wrong side of the tracks in Oakland. It's a crummy, bare bones facility in a miserable slice of town, that makes Chase Field feel like the Taj Mahal. Yet the structurally disadvantaged A's outdrew our sunny Sedonas that day, principally because me and fifteen thousand other cheapskates partook of a $2 seat promotion they've been running on Wednesdays for years. We slid down to the lower bowl and enjoyed a 6-5 nailbiter, when we werent biting into dollar hot dogs. It was a far better value than any game orchestrated by Derrick Hall, baseball's self proclaimed affordability king.

In winning two of three from the Padres, the offense averaged just under five runs at home against Garland, Young and Correia. Not bad. Pirates' ace Zach Duke tamed the bats convincingly (as did Young, above), and the Dbacks went hog wild against Pittsburg's back end, Morton and McCutcheon. McCutcheon's already in Triple AAA. The good news is they still bashed these guys. That's what good hitting teams do, and you take your chances with the better pitchers. The bad or temperate news is that Arizona hasnt faced much of that yet.

Gonzo provided color on a telecast or two and seems more comfortable in the booth. He's still cliche ridden and not terribly interesting, but better than before and certainly easier on the ears than Matt Williams. His presence, and relative ease representing today's organization is a critical marketing bridge for this front office, even moreso in light of valley resident Randy Johnson's rather clear preference for the Seattle organization.

Onto Los Angeles

Another Win, Another Irresponsible Deception

Missed the opener, as I was in flight, but the dastardly 'haters' at Yahoo kept me informed, calling into question the fatuous claim of a sellout. Diamondhacks has been documenting similar nonsense for years, but now that national outlets are on board, I guess it might even be true!

Derrick Hall spent the past forty eight hours on local media claiming a sellout. At this point, his fact fudging is old news, at least to this page. The story is how local 'journalists' and outlets let him do it with virtual impugnity.

The High Price of Deception

While fans of normal major league clubs anticipate Cactus & Grapefruit League action, word weary followers of the Diamondbacks brace for this spring's iteration of Baseball's Most Byzantine Memo, courtesy of President Derrick Hall. The headline, if history holds, should look something like:

DBACKS REDUCE OR HOLD TICKET PRICES on 84% OF SEATS FOR FOURTH YEAR IN A ROW

The percentage deviates from year to year, but the underlying con job is the same. What the above construction has basically meant, in English, is they raised prices on the 16% of seats sat in by season ticket holders, and raised individual game prices on half a million, unaccounted for, single game buyers. Yeah, I know, that sounds incompatible with the headline, but in spirit, that's what they've done since 2005. Regularly raising prices where fans are most likely to sit - then leveling, and more recently reducing, rates in weak selling sections.

On a fundamental and important level, neoclassical supply and demand, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the last part. It makes perfect sense, actually. What's wrong, and exasperating, is the lengths Dback deciders go to dress up this for profit strategy in a righteous, almost altruistic cloak. One reason, perhaps, is that it uncomfortably contradicts Mr Hall's airy service mantra of "rewarding his most dedicated fans". By reducing prices in only low demand areas, it's generally not diehard package accounts who benefit, but discerning holdouts who may be enticed by select reductions in less than stellar seats.

The larger contradiction is simply the hikes themselves. When you rely on tenuous and misleading "evidence" to brazenly prop your franchise up as "the most affordable in baseball", raising rates every year creates dissonance in your base that must be smothered, spun or simply smiled away.

Single tickets go on sale a week from tomorrow, yet remarkably, not a hint of individual game rates appear anywhere on dbacks.com. Despite grotesquely comic divorces that have compromised Dodger and Padre focus, both found time between sniping and court filings to prominently display prices - and the relatively amicable Rockies and Giants have been hawking regular season tix online for some time.

So why are the Diamondbacks "priceless" and arguably, clueless here? Could they be less customer focused than the Moores and McCourts? Does Mr Hall need extra time to craft this year's intricate crannies within The Memo? Is he the lone priest entrusted to upload this normally rudimentary information to the great unwashed? Is he running behind, or has he temporarily misplaced his remarkable gift of distortion? Hall might be otherwise engaged, managing fallout over the sour choice to abandon Tucson for Casino Park, and his awkward injection into Mesa's proposal to build the Cubs a new spring complex - a performance for which he was roundly pummeled by fans, media and state legislators. Whatever the "priceless" reason, it seems like a curious way to sell tickets.

Which brings us to something else Mr Hall said this week. According to beat writer Nick Piecoro, the CEO relayed that the club's 2010 attendance goal- provided that they win - is 2 million fans. I'm aware the economy is struggling, but this minimum target of theirs is lower than any annual gate realized in Diamondbacks history. Lower than 2005, when certain geniuses decided to increase prices after losing 111 games the year before. A half million lower than 2004 itself. And lower than last season, when the economy, poor play and ongoing value erosion conspired to drop attendance more than 4000 per night. Their goal is to be lower than that? Seriously?

With a team virtually guaranteed to perform better, probably much better, than last year? With the Dodgers and Giants poised for potentially significant regressions? With the Yankees on tap? With [snicker] the lowest prices in baseball? With the golden carrot of the 2011 All Star Game driving package sales? With enormously popular lightrail gliding to and from Chase Field's doorstep - from Mesa, Tempe and points north and west? With a Metro population twice as large as during the Diamondbacks' inaugural 1998 season? I'll say it again, because I know it's important - the economy is very weak. Fair enough.

But a goal of two million, in this town, is still a joke. It's an indictment. Not of fans, who averaged 3 million under Colangelo, whether he won or lost a hundred, without Mr Hall's fireworks, concerts or the city's light rail. In a Valley 20-50% smaller, with prices far cheaper than Moorad and Kendrick's - even after adjusting for the Dept of Labor's and Mr Hall's respective inflations.

In the same chat, Hall unintentionally revealed more on the subject, in that sideways manner of his:

Fans need to have confidence in the talent on the field.

That's true, certainly, and I'd go farther and predict locals will be pleasantly surprised by this year's hardball model. But Hall's tautology distracts from a more troubling, overarching ennui inspired by his "team". Phoenicians lack confidence in this ownership group, whether it be an ability or willingness to fashion a competitive product at market driven prices. In addition, baseball loving Phoenicians dont particularly like this ownership group either, which Diamondhacks has tirelessly (and tiredly!) documented since the rift went public, in 2004.

There's no denying Derrick Hall has ingratiated a personal fan club - encouraged by leadership to distract from unpopular principals, principles and not ready for prime time teams. He works hard at it and his cheerful energy can be infectious in small doses. Look no further than the insular circle of ostensible adults gushing how great it is to have "access" to a club president, who deftly schmoozes them for maximum PR exposure, while Barnuming our much larger, potential market into submission.

The profit from this targeted salesmanship is the adoration of a few hundred fanboys, and maybe a few thousand others, who think Derrick Hall's uncommon enthusiasm and people skills merit allegiance to - or very light treading upon - unpopular policies and methodically dishonest salesmanship.

The price? How much has relentless obfuscation from Hall and phony "entertainment" from talented underlings like Daron Sutton cost this franchise? It's not all their fault certainly, but two million is a nice round number. Where there used to be three.

At the end of this year, Ken Kendrick will have essentially run this franchise for as many seasons as Jerry Colangelo before him. Six years and change. Colangelo created the enterprise from essentially nothing, shepherded it to its greatest competitive heights, and bequeathed a lucrative farm system for his usurpers to exploit and mismanage. Mr Kendrick's legacy? He's managed to stabilize his rate of return by fielding a second division product in an historically weak National League. Yet even today, misguided fanboys parrot boilerplate it was Colangelo who ran "the operation" aground.

It is, at heart, a self interested, corporate deception. Fans in the nation's fifth largest city are on to it, and exacting its price on the appropriate parties.

See No Evil

Barely two years after ceasing to be a viable ballplayer, Eric Byrnes' eponymous TV show is suddenly going off the air. I dont know about anyone else, but now that I cant watch Byrnsie mumbling with his hat on backwards, sippin' a Starbucks, I'm not sure what to do with my time.

In related news, four months after being a viable major league team, the Diamondbacks arent on TV much either. The past few Saturdays have been radio games, granting visual respite from AJ Hinch's AAA rebuilding exercise and the oily accompaniment of Daron Sutton and Todd Walsh.

The game's not on TV tonight either. Instead, FSN is blasting Frank Caliendo's loud and uneven impressions, another tape of Joe Garagiola's ceremony that dominated Sunday's broadcast, Redheads pre-sell coverage, a never ending Todd Walsh indulgence with ticket broker Danny Zelisko, extended japery between Gracie and....wait a second. Is that Barry Zito? Oh, gosh. My mistake. There is a game being televised tonight. Sort of. Oh, and the game's tied in the seventh. Who knew?

Attendance @ The Lovely Morgan has dropped almost 5000 fans per evening since last year, one of the largest % and numerical drops in the sport, yet curiously the Dbacks' National League ranking remains eleventh (out of sixteen teams) - same as 2008.

Even with light rail and a summer of Phoenicians curtailing out of town vacation travel , this will be the fifth year in a row our team draws more on the road than at home, despite Chase Field's purported "lowest prices in baseball." Colangelo never made such claims, or massaged pricepoints to look better in industry TMR metrics. He just offered higher quality baseball at broadly lower prices, and drew more fans downtown than they did on the road - every single one of his seven years at the helm.

10:30pm -- The Dbackles just dropped tonight's 'contest' to the Giants. The loss puts Arizona four games south of San Diego, with eleven to go. After the game, AJ Hinch called it a night of poor execution and not winning baseball. More accurately, it's been a season of poor execution, with players acquired by JByrnes, developed and managed by Hinch.

Bob Melvin won 90 games and went to the 2007 NLCS with Doug Davis and Livan Hernandez as his #2 and 3, and a bunch of rookies and journeymen in the field. He got fired, presumably, for finishing two games off the pace in 2008, and falling 4.5 back of the wildcard in May of this year. Derrick Hall termed this five months 'gross underperformance'.

In his five months, AJ Hinch has rocketed out of contention faster and farther than anyone imagined, far worse than Melvin ever did with this rough core of players. As the brass defends AJ's hire under these circumstances, making excuses for AJ when they made mincemeat of Melvin, one can hardly escape what unprincipled phonies run our newly entrenched, last place Arizona Diamondbacks.

The Greatest Snow on Earth?

Good seats still available.

After allegedly drawing 20,025 Wednesday, most of whom presumably came to see the first place Dodgers, our revenue "sharing" Diamondbacks are in danger of attracting fewer fans in 2009 than at any time in franchise history.

They must average 22616 over their final dozen Chase-fests to equal the 2.058 million low water mark, set by themselves in 2005. It shouldnt be hard. Nine of the twelve games are weekenders, which traditionally draw larger crowds. Two bobblehead giveaways are planned, as well as a post game concert on September 19th, and fireworks following three Friday games.

Milwaukee visits this weekend. The other night, Grace and Sutton (who broadcast for the Brewers for several years) waxed on what a "good baseball town" Milwaukee is, and how fans there come out and support the team. It's true. The Brewers,who are reeling on the field, still average 37k fans per night in baseball's smallest market - and currently outdraw the Dbacks by a whopping 45%.

Sutton and Grace let this contrast linger heavy in the air, to let viewers draw the unspoken conclusion that Phoenix isnt a good baseball town. What they fail to tell you, because it destroys their implication, is that the contrast wasnt always so. Indeed, when evil incarnate Jerry Colangelo ran the organization (1998-2004), the Diamondbacks outdrew the Brewers every single year but one - the year Milwaukee christened Miller Park. Even then, they outdrew us by less than a thousand per game, which Colangelo emphatically reversed over his remaining tenure. The Diamondbacks absolutely crushed the Brewers at the gate over a seven year span, by a factor greater than Milwaukee beats us today.

Phoenix wasnt, and really isnt, a lousy baseball town. Phoenix has lousy owners, peddling a crummy - at times even dehumanizing - entertainment. People here respond to the same basic stimuli they do in New York or Boston - quality play, a baseball first ballpark experience, and prices to suit the market. Red Sox or Met fans crowing it aint so, should take note that Colangelo consistently outdrew their not so humble, drunken asses as well.

Doesnt mean Phoenix is the world's sports mecca by any stretch. But like anyone else, we tire of being condescended to, and being told what we're watching, and being told what we like, and being told we're having fun when we're not. It just wears on people, antagonizes them and eventually pushes them away. Normal, reasonably discerning people, anyway.

Those fans have left the Sedona Red Diamondbacks in droves. That's why attendance is down in Phoenix since 2005. Not because Phoenix has bad fans. Because the new front office oozes contempt for those fans, and the public has returned the favor. Manic clown Sutton, who has now curiously presided over uninspired attendance in two baseball burgs, might want to rethink his circus act, or even "challenge up" his hee hawing ringleader on that.

Full Of It

The Arizona Diamondbacks are unique in several respects, and one is they have a recent history of announcing sellouts where thousands of fans come dressed as green plastic chairs.

Today's opener was announced at 48, 799 and the tiny gap between that and the park's traditionally recognized capacity (49, 033) isnt the issue here. Close enough, in my book. Maybe Derrick Hall slightly reduced capacity by shuttering handicapped areas, club seats or set aside more square footage for his myriad Circles of Success. Who knows?

The issue is, from first pitch to last, there appeared to be not hundreds, but thousands and thousands of unoccupied seats in the top dozen or so rows of the stadium's top tier. The upper deck accomodates approximately 20,000 patrons, and if a quarter of that is empty, that's what, 5000 seats?

It wasnt easy to tell on television. FSN didnt pan the nosebleeds often, and when they did it was quick enough I almost didnt believe my eyes. Not after the Diamondbacks announced five days earlier that only 3000 unsold tickets remained. I dont see all that great and thought maybe the empty seats were imagined, where there were really only TV shadows. So I asked my Sedona Red-clad son, a 14 year old with perfect vision and no axe to grind against the current administration, and he thought there were more empties than me. About a third empty, he said, more like 7000 unexplained absences, just in the one deck.

It's understood people get up to eat, walk around and go to the bathroom, but it was always the same areas that appeared empty. The bottom decks werent constantly at numerical capacity either - no section ever is - but they certainly looked full to the naked eye throughout the game. There was something distinctly empty looking, both qualitatively and quantitatively, about these upper sections.

This comes on the heels of documented and unusual patterns of ticket availability online, that begged the question of artifical supply manipulation by the host club and/or MLB.

Diamondhacks welcomes alternative rational explanations for the "sellout" that save us the unpleasant task of calling these people liars. Knowledge trumps vitriol any old day. But from hollow marketing and merchandise rationales, to underlying price structure and curious ticket practices, this is a brain trust steeped in layers of deception. Their claims, in this case based on unverifiable, propietary data, simply should not be taken at face value any more.

Not when history tells us otherwise.

Not when our eyes tell us different.

Unavailable

Less than 48 hrs from real ball and Monday's Chase extravaganza's looking closer to a sellout at dbacks.com. Today they say there are no bleacher seats available, less than three days after offering four stubs together in the tenth row, about two thirds of the way down.

Wow. Those bleacher seats sure filled up fast, huh? Maybe that happens when thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of Infield Reserve seats in the same price point are mysteriously "unavailable" for 36 hours online. We detailed this curiosity three days ago.

And hey, guess what. Now that bleachers are "unavailable", you can get half a dozen seats togther in the twelfth row of the previously unavailable 18K seat, 40 row Infield Reserve! But wait, it gets better. For days now, poor saps saving up for a pair of the worst seats in the house (OF Reserve) have been offered just that -Row 40, Row 38. Yet just now, for giggles, I requested a dozen OF Reserve seats together - and got em in Row 25!

Let's review what's happening. For at least several weeks, the Diamondbacks have systematically rerouted online shoppers from requested sections that subsequently indicated what appears to be fairly widespread availability. We have documented this in the two largest upper deck pricepoints, Infield and Outfield Reserve, and are monitoring the currently "unavailable" bleacher area in anticipation of similar developments.

We can think of two explanations for this on-again, off-again status. Either this is a strategic ruse by the Diamondbacks, or secondary sellers (brokers, concierges, etc) are contractually dumping unsold seats back to the club. In either case, our initial concern this was an isolated computer anomaly no longer applies. The problem with the secondary seller argument is that the abruptly frozen sections are upper deck, hardly the currency of resort concierges, and it's typically midrow seats that suddenly 'become available' - not low row, higher markup locations normally favored by scalpers and brokers.

If this is a strategy, why would the Diamondbacks employ it? Artificially reducing seat supply (or the supply of any commodity) increases the equilibrium trigger price for a given level of demand. Surfers looking for Opener tickets typically dont opt out when the system implies uppers are gone - not when the system reroutes them to other comparably priced sections. It creates an illusion that tickets are harder to come by, and a false sense of urgency to scoop up what's available before it's too late. This tends to drive up the price people are willing to pay for a given location. ( Keep in mind, our front office has expressed interest in artifically (albeit publicly) reducing seat supply, flirting with construction of a wall circling midway around the upper deck.

The rerouted sections appear, for the most part, to be comparably priced, so this doesnt appear to be an obvious money grab. But what else do the rerouted areas have in common? For one thing, they're more visible on television. Despite being a much larger section, IF Reserve is more easily hidden from game action cameras. Bleacher and OF Reserve vacancies are often picked up by first and third base wells and shots from behind home plate. Most shots from centerfield, focused on pitcher and batter, are too tight to catch much of the upper deck in foul territory - especially if camera operators are instructed not to.

At the very least, whether this curious practice is a cynical strategy or a secondary dump, it's evident many of the Diamondbacks' most cost sensitive customers have been systematically offered and sold seats of lesser utility (to them) by ordering their tickets farther in advance. They are effectively penalized for planning and prioritizing their ticket purchases. While this may not violate any law, it would certainly seem to fall short of many fans expectations of disclosure and fairness when they go online to purchase event tickets.

If the Diamondbacks are denying available seat locations to unknowing customers, merely to create a false sense of dwindling supply, or to look better on TV, then they have breached a longstanding trust between buyer and seller, between fan and ballclub, and between ethical men. Virtual seats arent the only thing that can be made unavailable by the click of a mouse.

Fans can be "unavailable" too.

Sellout

Less then five days to pro ball and it doesnt look like our Dream Team will sellout their opener. It's hard to definitively tell, because MLB's software doesnt let one probe each section's availability - it just spits out seat numbers within a general price level, without much of an explanation.



The old software, god bless it, did let customers visually surf thru every stadium section, but I bring it up mostly because I've been monitoring Chase availability over the past couple weeks and wanted to share some curious findings.

Two weeks ago, I clicked on "Infield Reserve", which comprises 70% of the upper deck and is the biggest area, by far, in the park, and got the following response over a 36 hour span:


The number of seats you requested in Infield Reserve was not found. However, seats were found in Outfield Reserve....


MLB software not only guided me to the Outfield Reserve - it kicked me all the way up to Section 303 Row 40, which is the top row of the stadium by the foul pole. Uecker seats, basically.


Ordinarily, this would be good news, as it implies a virtual sellout for the home team, however, bleacher seats (which go for the same price as my first option) arent even a third sold - as evidenced by my online offer in the eleventh row of Section 105. I can also get a Club Seat on Opening Day. And not just any club seat.

Club seats in the front row.

Think about that. Three weeks before the Opener, front row club seats are available. You can get bleacher seats ten or twelve rows up, no problem. Yet dbacks.com wont present a pair anywhere in the vast upper Infield Reserve for purchase. Not even Row 40, with your mohawk massaging the roof.

MLB doesnt say Infield Reserve is "Sold Out". That would be fraud, I imagine. It says "tickets are not available in the quantity requested. In my case, codependent harlot that I am, that "quantity" would be an adjacent pair. Are we to believe Phoenicians scooped up among the worst ten thousand seats in favor of front row club seats for $10 more? Or for identical cost, selected upper deck nosebleeds en masse, rather than tenth row bleacher seats within naked sight of the earth's crust?

Fast forward a couple weeks. Can I procure seats in the previously off limits area? Heck, yes. Try 317 (that's directly behind home plate, for you out of towners). Yesterday Row 10, today row 14. (Upper sections have between 33 and 40 rows, so these are some of the best seats on the entire level). I can still get four bleacher seats in the tenth row, club seats in the closest section to home plate within each price point - less than five days from The Show.

Armed with this information, I heard a corker of an April Fool's joke today. CEO Derrick Hall was "interviewed" on radio and the host, KTAR's John Gambadoro, shamelessly spoonfed him this line:

I understand there are limited tickets available

That's right Johnny, and Chrysler has a limited number of cars for sale. If you act now!

Hall coyly confirmed "some" seats were available and reassured listeners they were "good seats, too!" Well, the second part's true - it appears you can sit most anywhere in this 48K seat venue on April 6th, for Hall's price. But the first part, the little symbiotic ruse on the southwest's most powerful radio station was more than an April Fool's joke.



Gambo's supposed to be some confrontational New Yorker, but his matter-of-fact willingness to setup and further the illusion the Dbacks opener is some kind of hot ticket around town is evidence of a more longstanding joke: the notion that Phoenix has an independent sports media worth a hoot.

Hall went on:

"I can predict a sellout but we're not quite there yet".

I can predict world harmony and a Diamondbacks World Series...but we're not quite there yet either. The truth is, nobody needs to "predict" a sellout here.

That's already happened.

Hall To Fans: Let Them Eat Cake

As MLB teams deliver creative, tangible discounts, Derrick Hall continues to deliver little more than empty sermons on affordability.



Here's how some teams are actually enticing fans, with more than a line and a smile (hat tip: AZ Snakepit):

• The ever uber-demand Yankees, boasting a glittering new park, introduced $5 tickets.
  
  
• The Blue Jays, with an empty seat problem similar to the Dbacks, now offer 81 games in the upper deck for $95 - that's $1.17 per game, in one of North America's largest, moneyed metros.
  
  
• The Brewers and Braves, midmarket teams that outdrew Arizona, now sell dollar seats, according to USA Today.
  
  
• The Astros, who also outdrew AZ and play in a larger, higher income market, offer a ten pack for just $70. Compare with Arizona's upper deck Ten Pack, starting at $120 (I was billed $173.50 for mine, which I immediately cancelled.)
  
  
• The Twins are having fun with the recession, tying daily ticket prices to the stock market. What used to be $21 seats are going for $6-7.

How have the Dbacks responded?


1. Their 10 pack, which I've praised in the past as a flexible price bridge between season tickets and single games, is more expensive than ever, at odds with Hall's "most affordable commitment"- and rather astonishing given the economic climate.

2. On Opening Day at The Lovely Morgan, two seats in the vast upper deck Infield Reserve run you $50 online. These are not box seats hugging the rail. Outrageous for an Opener? Maybe not, but several NL teams ask less for comparable seats, including the Braves, who charge $35.05 inclusive, a whopping 30% less than our self-described "most affordable" franchise.



3. In addition to raising prices, USA Today reports the Dbacks took grim note of the spiraling economy, and in an edict that must delight Marie Antoinette's ghost, "will invite fans to bring their own food to the ballpark." Hall, the communications Svengali most responsible for a half empty stadium, is now "inviting" people to bring their own food - something they've always been allowed to do. What windfall can a strapped populace expect next from Paradise Valley's Pied Piper of Affordability? A cheerful offer to walk to games in July, to save on fuel and parking?

This uncommonly useless "invite" could fool a few Phoenicians to buy overpriced tix they otherwise wouldnt, but brown bagging upper deck patrons also require fewer support staff (vendors, concessionaires, cleanup). This is classic Derrick - saving the club bucks and peddling it as some illusory fan "benefit". Maybe we wont have to walk to games in the searing summer, but expect a healthy walk if you want a soda or dog in the upper deck -that concourse may largely shut down, like it was late 2004, when Kendrick slashed point of sale services.

To be fair, it's still twenty six days til gameday. At this point, however, I've decided not to buy seats until prices better reflect the real market - especially considering Mr Hall has hinted at attractive deals. I imagine a lack of sales revenue as much as any concerted marketing "plan" will generate more realistic offers as the year progresses - as in previous seasons.

Perhaps not in April, when an unusually high profile home schedule should dramatically bolster the gate. But soon enough. Mr Hall has stood out from MLB peers, brimming with optimism about seasonal attendance - he says it looks flat, or possibly up slightly from last year. While it's too early to call his bluff, preliminary indications on the ticketing web pages and elsewhere - at these prices - suggest Mr Hall may be eating his cake before customers are having any of it.



**********************
Song of the Day - Show Me (My Fair Lady)

Sticking the "Plus" to Ten Pack

Single game tickets will go on sale soon, so I thought I'd grab me a "Ten Pack" instead. They've been a good value, even with silly, last minute fees that dont pop up until the invoice page. No blackout dates, buy a minimum of ten seats across as many games as you want- in any combination - for considerably less than what single tickets cost. ( One time, we scored club level tix for well below what season ticket holders pay, without the 83 game commitment. Nice! )

Anyway, I log in last night to buy the 2009 10 PackPlus; the one advertised for $120, where they toss in a $10 Fry's Gift Card. There was only one catch: it cost $173.50.

Ugh. I cancelled the order. It's not just the fees. Those were "only" $23.50 and are old hat. What's new is $30 of add-ons for so called premier games. Previous packs waived premier differentials since, presumably, you were committing to a ten ticket minimum - a pretty nice incentive to splurge for the bigger overall outlay.

Characteristically, the Dbacks dangled a $10 Gift Card to distract from a pair of underreported unpleasantries - the aforementioned premier charges, plus the $10 increase ($110 to $120) from the 2008 package base price, essentially negating the bright and shiny Fry's Card. These maneuvers have Derrick and his buddies' fingerprints all over it, yakking wide-eyed about value and affordability while quietly crafting derivative hikes on the cusp of a national depression.

To be fair, the premier levies arent completely hidden. The Ten Pack page does indicate upfront those games will cost you more (although it doesnt tell you which games, or how much more, until after you order). So while fraud isnt the issue here, being invoiced 44% more than the advertised $120 is a bit of a jolt, especially considering the mailing/will call fee is only $3.50 and there's no added tax.

The practical issue is: Why should a fan commit to ten tickets now, at $17 per seat in the upper bowl, when he can buy the same (or fewer) seats individually, for close to the same price later? Based on the row numbers offererd in my aborted order, many fans seem to share this hesitation. I received rows 8 and 9 for every game (including the Opener and the 4/10 Dodger Friday night premier), which are the first two rows in the relevant sections! That's not to say big games wont eventually draw well or even sell out - single game sales havent started and Opening Day is still four weeks away -but these packages have been advertised since before the holidays and it appears (from the row numbers) the club has sold next to none of them.

Which is interesting in that CEO Derrick Hall has, unlike most clubs, consistently exuded confidence projecting 2009 attendance. It could be warranted. He has propietary data to look at and we agree a depression in Phoenix could benefit local summer entertainments - escaping to an air conditioned ballgame (or theatre or bowling alley) will be cheaper than escaping to San Diego or elsewhere.

All the same, havent the Dbacks hiked the effective cost of their value packs at a most curious time? Why would any enterprise, particularly one relying on discretionary income, substantially raise the practical cost of their value packs now? In March of 2009, it's ironic to consider that such a firm sabotaging its most attractive deals, may also be the outfit least shy with the superlatives when it comes to their self-described value, affordability and sincere commitment to customers.

Jumping Through Hoops

By most accounts, Saturday's Diamondback FanFest was a soaring success. Of course, most accounts in this town are supplied by MLB and its enablers. The club finally allowed non-paying fans onto the sacred green, a source of more stadium cheers than on a typical gameday. Steve Gilbert asserted attendance exceeding 10,000 inside The Lovely Morgan, bolstered by balmy weather.

To hear Gilbert tell it, the event defied odds and heralds some sort of grass roots Dback renaissance:

The attendance was especially impressive considering it was less than a week ago that the Cardinals played in the Super Bowl, and in just over a week, the NBA All-Star Game will take place across the street at U.S. Airways Arena. In other words, there is a lot of competition for sports fans in the Valley.

Let's get this straight. The Super Bowl in Tampa, that few Arizonans attended, hurt the gate at a free baseball fan fest back in Phoenix? A week later? Maybe Steve's trying to say there'd be 20-25000 fans in line for Miguel Montero's autograph, were it not for that gosh durn Super Bowl. Of course, most journalists would figure this type of cross-franchise contention might apply to events on the same day or weekend, and dismiss wallet competition entirely for a free event. Not Steve!

For diversification, Steve weighs in with the usual, ponderous suspects:

"That's what we've been talking about," [Derrick] Hall said. "There is a bond forming between our fans and players that is special and unique."

"I think this was, by far, our best Fan Fest to date," Hall said. "The reaction we received from the fans was overwhelmingly
positive."

That's more or less what he said two years ago about the rebranded unis, when sentiment ran 80/20 against in The Arizona Republic.

Speaking of jumping through hoops, just up the street, untold thousands paid $10 a head to watch hoop dancing on the lawn of Central Avenue's Heard Museum. Last week, almost half a million treked to a Scottsdale golf tournament - the world's best attended. It's hardly a chore enticing large numbers of Phoenicians outside this time of year. I could put a sign out on my cross street this Saturday and sell ramen from my driveway - and a thousand people could show. It's no big deal. Phoenix is the Shanghai of the Southwest.

I read up on Fan Fest on the local boards, and best I can tell it was full of FSN and Diamondback employees and their kids, and maybe a few homeless people wandering the neighborhood. Nothing wrong with that. Kids had a good time. But does the turnout represent a spike in genuine interest, or just a place to go, for free, on a beautiful day? Remember, the hoop dancing was $10, and enjoyed a similar all day turnout.

A final gem from Derrick Hall's copyboy:

The D-backs, who have gotten a little more than an 80 percent renewal from season-ticket holders, started selling mini season-ticket plans on Saturday. Individual game tickets go on sale on March 7.

The 80%+ renewal means that the ST base is as low as it's ever been, a clear indictment of the economy, but also, perhaps, of a cynical, regressively structured ticket pricing model that's finally run its course. More importantly, "a little over 80%" may also suggest that the 84% ST retention rate reported just last week in USA Today may actually be declining.

Huh? I thought season tickets are existing accounts, that only count as "renewed" when paid in full for 2009. So, when all the ST accounts are due payable, you count up the renewals and the opt outs and announce a resulting "retention or renewal rate". It's really more a figure than a "rate". How can it move up or down significantly within a particular season - more specifically, how can it reasonably slide a couple percentage points in less than a week, if season accounts are payable at roughly the same time?

Did Derrick disseminate artificially high retention rates on the rather gaudy presumption that last year's accounts were "renewed" by default.... until they actually went belly up? If so, the season ticket "base" could decline even further than previously reported. I'm at a loss to otherwise explain a renewal figure more volatile than the Dow Industrials.

Brand New Turnkey

It turns out a survey firm, Turnkey, is about to publish a prohibitively expensive report suggesting the Diamondback brand is gaining local traction and may overtake the Suns brand. Quite apart from methodology and transparency concerns associated with hard to access reports, or any immediate insights regarding the Suns, this sort of finding doesnt surprise me for several reasons, but I'll get to that in a minute.

First, here's Jim McLennan's friendly little "cast" about Turnkey, trying yet again to bait sanctioned Diamondhacks back to his opportunistically pious pit:

Very interesting to note a neutral survey showing the public perception of and brand loyalty to the Diamondbacks as improving over the past year, despite the lack of a title. This would seem to run counter to the views of certain critics, shall we say.

Certain critics is a coy reference to me, as evidenced by our interminable debates on this subject. (The first commenter picks up on this seamlessly, invoking me by name). McLennan's superficial suggestion here is that the report's findings appear at odds with my longstanding contention that the current FO has mismanaged the brand.

[Sigh #5,277]

First, in terms of fan loyalty, the new FO may be slightly improving on their own franchise low water marks. This runs somewhat parallel to the attendance argument we've had so many times, before Jim angrily truncates them. They are not challenging Colangelo in any meaningful way, and detailed customer satisfaction metrics overwhelmingly confirm this (below). This reinforces what is - and has always been - my central claim: that the new FO doesnt serve fans as well as Colangelo did. On ticket prices. Fan relations. Stadium environment. Brand identity. You name it.

Second, their rather insular improvement from the 2005-2007 period to 2008 is entirely consistent with several acknowledgments I've made - indeed asserted - about recent measures I consider positive: inviting JC to throw out the NLCS ball, postgame fireworks/concerts, Redheads, easing off baseball's largest % single game price differentials, and finally lowering selected prices on reasonably attractive seats.

I've never claimed the FO is resigned to repeat the same errors year after year after year, a la Groundhog Day or the Knicks' James Dolan. On the contrary, several policy tweaks make it clear to me they're grudgingly learning from past mistakes, and as a purely intellectual matter, it's conceivable Kendrick and Moorad might ultimately surpass Colangelo in something other than profit (although as a practical observation, I consider it unlikely). Mr McLennan, however, is too eager to prop up such nuanced criticism as a crude scarecrow, where I assume everything the FO does is automatically wrong, or inherently worse than what they did yesterday.

Third, and hypocritical to a point of humor, is that for literally years now, in our countless debates on the subject, McLennan has steadfastly reduced Brand & Attendance to little more than "winning" and "a matter of time", pooh-pooing my consistent argument that "B&A" involves much more than that - including fan perceptions on pricing, the FO, indeed, the 2007 rebranding itself. Now, after all these years, as soon as Jim finds a study suggesting a weaker (ie more complex) correlation between "winning" and brand loyalty than he ever conceded (let alone openly entertained), his first inclination is to spin it as if I'm the one whose longstanding views are being compromised.

I wouldnt call Jim a "stand up" guy, but this is comical.

**********

Here's the methodology of ESPN's Fan Satisfaction Index (2003-2007 online), involving more than 80,000 respondents, across a host of satisfiers. There's a ton of empirical info here - too much really. To intelligently examine the Dbacks, I first recommend filtering out all noise from the NFL, NBA and NHL.

In 2003, the Diamondbacks ranked first in MLB, in terms of overall satisfaction.
In 2004, they ranked second, out of thirty clubs.
In 2005, they dropped to ninth.

Let's stop and digest. Is it reasonable that the 111 loss team (2004) could be second in customer satisfaction? What month of the year were these surveys administered? Does "2004" actually reflect sentiments from 2003? Possibly, although I note ESPN hasnt published 2008 results yet, suggesting maybe the stated year is in synch. In any case, feel free to assume a one year lag if you like, until that question is answered, meaning the club dropped from second to ninth on the basis of the 2004 debacle.

But in "2006", overall satisfaction plummeted to fourteenth. By "2007", satisfaction eked back up to eleventh, lower than at any time during the Colangelo era.

Was the slight improvement in 2007 due to that season's exciting playoff run, or does this reflect 2006? What's interesting here is that significant improvement in only two component factors led to the slightly higher overall rating. Fans felt much better about the players and coaching in the 2007 data than they did in 2006. This would suggest no annual lag in the study, as one wouldnt expect dramatically higher player/coach satisfaction in 2006, when the team tied for last place. These increases seem more consistent with a mood altering 90 win season.

Some component filters are particularly informative. For example, here's what Phoenix fans feel about the club's Fan Relations 2003-2007:

2003 -2nd
2004 -3rd
2005 -10th
2006 - 13th
2007 - 14th

Here's what we think of the owners:

2003 - 2nd
2004 - 3rd
2005 - 13th
2006 - 14th
2007 - 18th



...and my favorite, affordability:


2003 - 7th
2004 - 10th
2005 - 12th
2006 - 19th
2007 - 18th

Ouch. Despite relatively low season ticket prices, and a shamelessly cynical marketing campaign that, regrettably, continues to this day, most Dback fans havent swallowed the "lowest prices in baseball" Kool - Aid.

Finally, here's what we think of the stadium experience:

2003 - 4th
2004 - 5th
2005 - 11th
2006 -17th
2007 - 22nd

I think it's fair to say some of this is due to normal and expected stadium "depreciation". New parks are built and hopscotch to the top of the ratings. But that's one helluva drop in just four years - from one of the best venues to one of the worst. Food for thought, in a separate post.

There's lots more here, perhaps most significantly the filters by each metropolitan market. Here's the various 2007 rankings just within Phoenix. It's been my contention that while Phoenix loyalties may not be deeply rooted, the town is also relatively easy to please. Explore the various years at your leisure, but I think these figures support that general contention.

Back to the latest Turnkey report. Derrick Hall had this to say:

The results of Turnkey’s brand survey among Phoenix sports fans justifies and validates our investment into our employees, fans and ballpark over the last couple of years.

Perhaps, but I wouldnt certify that conclusion without really diving into the methodology and some context of historical results. I'm more inclined to think these preliminary findings echo those at ESPN: a growing city relatively receptive to baseball (and sports generally), and a front office starting to repair damage mostly of their own making.

**********
Song of the Day - Brand New Key (Melanie)