have bad fan reputations. They come and go with the “win”d.

and almost felt sorry for Boston fans. Boo hoo. You have too many bandwagon fans. Poor baby. :-P

This is also why I argued in 2004 that the WS win would ruin the Red Sox.

but it’s always funny the idea of “poser” in any social clique. It’s always everyone else that is the poser. Furthermore, everyone is one at one point in time, in the sense it takes time to indentify with a group.

I did not become a fan until 1999 when we were winning, but after that I found a strange loyalty to them and have been a fan since.

So am I excused, I stuck around in 2004, actually funny thing is 2004 was the year I attended the most d-backs games, 12 that I can recall.

Familiar with your posts on DBBP, so glad to have you popping in here and giving us a local’s perspective. Here in Arizona, the bulk of fans are pretty fickle: almost everyone here is from somewhere else and they bring their loyalties with them. The team is still too young to have many fans who were born and brought-up as Diamondbacks devotees; that will likely take the best part of a generation, before they reach the disposable income level. So, by and large, bandwagon fans are all we have – that’s not intended as anything derogatory, just a statement of fact.

So, enthusiasm here is largely tied to wins and losses. There was a huge upsurge after 2001, but I definitely regard anyone who survived through 2004, and who winces at the mention of names like Casey Fossum, as a true fan. That winnowed out the casual ones once again, and though the start to this season has restarted the buzz, I don’t feel like it’s taken off to any real extent, despite our lengthy stay at the top of the division.

I do, however, feel cautiously optimistic: fans at Chase seem to be getting more interactive, and not just when prodded by the two-headed in-game host Minessa. Of course, there is still a long way to go before they become as fanatically loud as at some other parks, but I think, comparing Arizona to other expansion teams [rather than those have been around for a century or longer], we’re not doing too badly.

almost everyone here is from somewhere else and they bring their loyalties with them

It’s true most everyone here is from somewhere else, but the idea that ‘almost everyone’ brings exclusive loyalties with them (implying the Dbacks have an unusual hurdle to overcome in order to win over fans) is really overblown, IMO. It’s no doubt true of some people, but I find most local sports fans not only willing – but downright eager – to identify with and support reasonably well run local teams.

So, enthusiasm here is largely tied to wins and losses

Since fans everywhere are more “enthusiastic” for a winner, your implication is neither fair to Phoenix fans nor borne out by the facts (at least not attendance figures). Between 1998 and 2004, Phoenix outdrew the NY Mets - and we didnt just do it in the aggregate – we outdrew the Mets seven years running, whether we were opening a new stadium, winning a World Series, missing the playoffs or losing 111 games. Heck, poor stepsister Phoenix outdrew vaunted Red Sox Nation every year but one in that same time period (98-04).

I’m not in any way suggesting comparable market demographics with New York or Boston – we had advantages during that period and they had advantages (some of which you alluded to and some of which you didnt); the data does, I think, underscore three points, however: one, that winning influences attendance a great deal in markets where it’s often assumed that it doesnt ( the Mets and Sawx were losing more back then), two, local attendance is no more tied to “winning” than in many places with more established reputations, and three, attendance everywhere is influenced by myriad factors.

Here in Arizona, the bulk of fans are pretty fickle

Actually, I agree. Our base is “inherently tenuous” compared to some established east and midwest markets, but I think that’s more due to those intergenerational challenges you mentioned (and mngmnt’s response to them) than any peculiar bandwagon tie to “winning”. I suspect, for example, we’re more sensitive to things like price and rebranding. Yankee and Red Sox fans complain about price constantly and if either team was totally rebranded, I envision packs of earnest young men – in “vintage” MLB gear no doubt – jumping into the Harlem and Charles rivers. But plenty of dry neighbors would still go to the games, provided the clubs had big stars and won. In Phoenix, the base is smaller, less entrenched, and these kerfuffles or externalities can become showstoppers to a less easily replaceable segment of fans. An analogy might be having a spat with someone on your second date vs having a spat with your spouse of twenty years – when the relationship is relatively new, smaller stuff can compromise or even end the relationship. I just see this as a generally acknowledged characteristic of newer markets like Phoenix, to be managed by this, or any, business franchise.

[ I find most local sports fans not only willing – but downright eager – to identify with and support reasonably well run local teams. ]

What, like the Cardinals? Surely not

What part of “reasonably well run” dont you get?

Or perhaps the Suns, who recently as 2003-04, were in the bottom half of the NBA as far as attendance goes, unable to sell out most of their home-games.

Bottom half, lol. In 2003, the Suns finished dead last, won a woeful 29, and the arena was still 86% full. A couple year’s later, under the Nash express, they were up to 93 and then 96%. This is your “evidence” that Phoenix is just a bunch of bandwagon fans? Good grief.

If, by "reasonably well-run", you mean winning, I’d agree.

I think what I meant by reasonably well run was: competitive on a regular basis and attractive to fans.

But compare Chicago[Cubs],where from 1990-1997, they were in the top half of NL attendance for eight consecutive seasons, despite never finishing better than third…

Here we’re debating whether Phoenix is more bandwagon than other MLB cities, so right on cue, you trot out the Cubs, the most atypical, loss glorifying, least bandwagon base in the game, perhaps in all of sports. That’s your evidence that Diamondback fans, by contrast, are unusually bandwagon-ish? I’ll give you the Cubs, if you promise to “give me a break”.

There is so much wrong with the [Phoenix v Mets] comparison, I don’t even know where to start.

There’s nothing “wrong” with the comparison to the Mets, or the Red Sox for that matter. I was very clear not to equate circumstances or markets, but merely pointed out that we outdrew these teams in the not too distant past, which I think might be a revelation to some of your readers, especially after listening to influential posters like shoe and yourself infer that Phoenix may have to win, or wait a generation, to get a real fan base…like…er…I dont know…the Mets or the Sox, maybe? I guess that’s what bugs me, Jim. You have this recent history just staring you in the face and you seem so eager to downgrade it at every opportunity. Dont get me wrong. I know all about the new stadium and the World Series ring. But look at 1999, after the 97 losses and declining ST sales. We lost to the Mets in the NLDS and still outdrew ‘em. The next year, as you well know but deliberately skate around in your “analysis”, we missed the playoffs and they went to the first Subway series in half a century…and we still outdrew ‘em…and we outdrew em the next year before we got to enjoy a World Series attendance bump of our own.

Does that mean we’re a better market, or better fans, than New York? No, and that was not the intention of the comparison. Does it mean we were still enjoying some of the glow of having a new stadium/franchise? Not like 1998 obviously, but probably yes, and the comparison was not intended to ignore that, or other, factors.

What it does mean, I think, is that some of these bromides about “having to wait a generation” and “transient fan bases” are liberally overstated when it comes to Phoenix. They’re not entirely false, but in light of our recent attendance history, relative to some of these entrenched, ballyhooed bases, I believe these bromides carry an inappropriate gravity and serve to deflect more robust debate – as in, “Phoenix is just kind of a sucky sports town and there’s not much you can do about it”.

Colangelo, driven by a keener appreciation of the local customer, proved you can do something about it. He proved it with the Suns and he proved it with the Diamondbacks.

Attendance declined every year, but one, under Colangelo. Attendance has increased, every year but one, under Moorad et al

True, but what a hopelessly misleading picture this paints – you might as well be working for Derrick Hall ;-) Colangelo attendance declined every year. Declined from what? From a wildy successful and unsustainable inaugural gate in ‘98 that averaged 44K per night. Yeah, they declined alright. Moorad and Kendrick have increased attendance, from what? From the pitiable 2005 franchise trough, resulting from , yes, the 04 horror, but also the incredibly alienating decision to raise ticket prices for the 2005 season.

I see little or no evidence that the change in colors had any effect on attendance or overall interest, outside of a tiny – but very, very vocal – minority.

There’s been no definitive study on the matter and I’ll concede, it’s a very hard thing to aggregate. All we’re left with, I suppose, are infrequent polls in The Republic, where hundreds of unique reader comments ran 4 to 1 against the branding change. Oh, and there’s the lackluster attendance itself – so indescribably shitty it draws national media attn whenever the Sedona Reds actually manage to compete.

The new management seems a good deal more committed to listening to the fans. Compare Derrick Hall with Rich Dozer. ‘Nuff said.

Meh. It’s 80% illusion. Derrick’s very good at what he does, but he’s not the most recognized face in Arizona primarily “to listen”; he’s mostly there to cajole people to come to the park at prices they otherwise wouldnt be interested in. I’m ok with some of it. The fireworks is a great value-add, exactly the kind of thing Colangelo would’ve done had he ever priced himself into a self induced attendance crisis, and I wish Derrick well with it. Same goes for the Redheads section. Cute ideas to bump up his value proposition, especially when the club’s not winning. Unfortunately, Derrick’s charm doesnt undo (and indeed orchestrates) the club’s suppression policy at the heart of this nagging attendance “problem”, and some of his more exuberant claims have, in my view, hurt the club’s image and credibility with potential fans. FWIW, I sense they did turn a bit of a corner last year in terms of customer service, aided by the luck infused on field performance, and eventual resignation to the fact that some of their earlier pricing and branding edicts didnt work out too well. I still consider them a profit first-winning second kind of outfit, but not as hopelessly unresponsive as, say, the Bidwills.