But if the Yankees are terrible and draw MORE, doesn't that reinforce the idea that the Mets are second class?
Have you checked the attendance figures this year? They are virtually tied now at home, and the Mets have clearly OUTDRAWN the Yankees on the road this year. Besides, their home network, SNY, now outdraws the Yankees network, YES, in the NYC area in advertising revenue. SO do you have any idea what you are talking about?
By the #s maybe but anyone w/ eyes can tell you they aren't close as the Mets used tickets sold and inflate their actual attendance #s. Even w/ those inflated #s we are averaging 2,000 more a game and have you beat by 4% in % of tickets sold.
The Yankees sold more than 3.8 million tickets before the season began, so their record during the season has very little to do with their attendance.
Either way. How many did the Mets sell before the season? It really doesn't matter. The fact is they have drawn fewer fans than the Yankees and have filled a smaller percentage of seats in their stadium. Those support my assertion that they are the second rate team in their city.
Do you have even the slightest evidence to back these statements up? Every team reports tickets sold, and that has been true for many years. There have been many thousands of empty seats at Yankee Stadium for weeks, and anyone with eyes knows it.
For the first 30 years of being at Shea the Mets outdrew the Yankees more than 2/3 of the time. The recent string of Yankee successes on the field has made them the bigger draw, in exactly the way that it did for the Mets in the 1960s/early 1970s and in the mid-1980s/early 1990s. When you have multiple teams in an area, this is what happens (the Cubs are one of the few noteworthy exceptions to that). Using phrases like "second rate" in the context of a team averaging almost 51,000 tickets sold per game, and getting higher television ratings, strikes me as ridiculous.
The many times this year the mets have listed 40 or 50,000 attendance when there was mostly orange and clearly there weren't more than 20-25,000 in the ballpark. Maybe you saw thousands of empty seats but at Shea it's tens of thousands less than they report at times. We've been through this beforee. despite inheriting TWO fan bases the yanks have outdrawn the Mets in most years since the mets came into existence. It was close early on then the Mets took the lead but we have owen the attendance for a long time now. I cannot look it up now but I will and i'll post it.
Yanks: http://baseball-almanac.com/teams/yankatte.shtml Mets: http://baseball-almanac.com/teams/metsattn.shtml Yankes led 1962-'63, 1976-'83, 1993-current Mets led 1964-'75, 1984-'92 Let's add it up 47 seasons: Yankees led 26 times Mets led 21 times
So in other words just as I said, you have absolutely no evidence to support this personal impression that you state as a fact. Further, your statement that the Mets "inflate" the numbers is a complete fabrication, since no team claims to report the number of people in the stands, but rather the number of tickets sold. If they were inflating that number (the only one they, or any other team, actually reports) they would be leaving themselves open to paying more income tax on revenue they never got, paying more revenue sharing money as a result, and paying fines and serving jail time for tax fraud, making the entire notion absurd. In other words, just what I said - in the first 29 years at Shea, the Mets had the higher attendance 21 times, the only exception being when the Yankees were good and the Mets were bad (even if you include the two years at the Polo Grounds, which I didn't in my statement, the Mets outdrew the Yankees more than 2/3 of their first 31 years in New York). You, on the other hand, said it was close early on, which is of course nonsense, since the Mets outdrew the Yankees every one of their first 12 years at Shea.
Just watch Met games then see what attendance they report. It's not rocket science. They only report tickets sold not actual so it's impossible to "prove" it but use your eyes especially when they report 45,000 and more than half the ballpark is empty.
In other words, your statement that they inflate attendance figures is just a lie. If you had said "I think that more people who buy tickets for Met games don't show up to the game than is the case at Yankee games" I wouldn't have said a word (since I don't have any idea one way or the other), but that isn't what you said, is it? Rather, you said that the Mets inflate attendance figures, which is a complete fabrication, and that the Yankees were close in attendance to the Mets when the team started, which your own numbers showed is ridiculously untrue. You're right, it's not rocket science.
Wow, even you can't think that this is any sort of reply to the fact that YOU can't support an accusation that YOU made. Why not just admit that you shouldn't have made a completely unsupported statement? Of course, anyone on this board knows that it's pretty obvious that you won't do that.
You want me to prove something that we know there aren't any records then yuo are shocked when I ask you to prove something that you cannot prove. It works both ways. I ALWAYS back up my arguments, this is not one where it can be proven except for those w/ working eyes.
I'm supposed to prove something that there aren't records of but that's ok but when I flip it on you guys it's all of a sudden not ok. I love how that works.
