My theory on re-branding, revert to the 89er nickname, then go with the Dodgers color scheme and lettering styling.

I've heard from within that any trace of red will be gone from the name and the logo. Kinda a no brainer though.

Oklahoma City & Tulsa to become AAA & AA affiliates of the Los Angeles Dodgers

Dodgers Grab Drillers, Redhawk Affiliations - OzarksFirst.com (http://www.ozarksfirst.com/story/d/story/dodgers-grab-drillers-redhawk-affiliations/41663/r5ey8-dAw0-B3kvpAX_YXw)


https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.607990446819118336&pid=15.1&P=0 https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608038812440659786&pid=15.1&P=0

Bricktown Ballpark, OKC . . . . . .ONEOK Park, Tulsa


http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif "Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ...as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif

From the L.A. Times:


It’s apparently undetermined whether the triple-A team will continue to be known as the Redhawks, but red and the Dodgers would not appear to have a future together.

Dodgers move triple-A to Oklahoma City, double-A to Tulsa - LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgers/dodgersnow/la-sp-dn-triple-a-to-oklahoma-city-20140917-story.html)


Interestingly, the Albuquerque Isotopes (the current AAA farm club for the Dodgers) has read as one of it's main colors.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7e/AlbuquerqueIsotopesCap.png

From the L.A. Times:



Dodgers move triple-A to Oklahoma City, double-A to Tulsa - LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgers/dodgersnow/la-sp-dn-triple-a-to-oklahoma-city-20140917-story.html)


Interestingly, the Albuquerque Isotopes (the current AAA farm club for the Dodgers) has read as one of it's main colors.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7e/AlbuquerqueIsotopesCap.png

The logo looks perfect for the Astro's affiliate (though they are apparently will be with the Rockies)

I've heard from within that any trace of red will be gone from the name and the logo. Kinda a no brainer though.

I heard that today too.

I even heard the name "BlueHawks" being considered. Can't say that I don't like that name but bringing back the 89ers in all blue would be my vote.

.


Oklahoma City 89ers' Memories...

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS2MEPHhVcO8ON-yfyd8SAK8xbf2dMPxJM4QOzgi6nyVdZ5Hl0Y https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608044769562332582&pid=15.1&P=0


https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTeObmMuphJcicRMWwKLiYPWj8qVj9SL GgXfdHs1mjQ-BmVOEzBIA https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQugUxIvfEqy5f-qv-s76LznBKgYuwWihV-F19H89qjjmorfmyrhw https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608013472137022196&pid=15.1&P=0

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSzRGrwRlu8NyFkU9tT-4YLmmdittKxXf43lIxw95rWz8JbU6NzHw https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.607987629315328298&pid=15.1&P=0 https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608025519519960520&pid=15.1&P=0

http://www.baseballtoddsdugout.com/OKC89ers.jpg


https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTzKYFyhWlp9dSUcjkgIM_P6-y-lG-U5RalGyqGEb2nWGh_UUclWQ https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608036879712519308&pid=15.1&P=0 https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608015469290455218&pid=15.1&P=0


http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif "Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ...as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif

Los Angeles Dodgers' uniforms

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608028714980739409&pid=15.1&P=0

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608012587372643927&pid=15.1&P=0 https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRkrYdC5tEAPpIONvuP_1wQOM-CnEe70pzspp1-Lb7K2umLowP4


Los Angeles Dodgers uniforms are white, gray & blue with red numerals...


Albuquerque Isotopes' Uniforms



https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS71-_nPRbjc0WDb5qVmEJecXOEZARF1cxp2B8oJhZLOCh8v6k https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQUDAdbqZmVTPlzWEOW2Y7Do4cTf3wjQ BPdNIN4yEaKaPjkKPUsIg https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRj6wXPUgbX03BwjEvB0kt2Kt-cEMOFI9pjnIV1jHsBj_SAGec0

Albuquerque wore black, white & red uniforms.

The Dodgers' AAA affiliate continue with the Oklahoma City RedHawks tradition; does anyone think the current uniforms will be a concern?


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRkfnk7DuTBdANUnpQR3tfw8SsEb0qRo 4nesUU6rxYaafoRajnS https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608002640231206624&pid=15.1&P=0

http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif "Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ...as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif

The logo looks perfect for the Astro's affiliate (though they are apparently will be with the Rockies)

Which works out well because the dodgers were complaining about ABQ's high altitude messing with their pitchers coming into the bigs. Now ABQ doesn't have to worry about losing a team because of altitude as both Denver and ABQ sit a mile high.

RedHawks to host Dodger Day Dec. 3 - Sports - The Edmond Sun (http://www.edmondsun.com/sports/redhawks-to-host-dodger-day-dec/article_23c0b330-7591-11e4-be0c-a7b6cbbcf03a.html?mode=jqm)

It sounds like they are staying the RedHawks

Its Confirmed Redhawks is no more.Im a dodgers fan and i am hearing that the new name will be OKC Dodgers can't confirmed we will learn the official nickname tomorrow

The Dodgers just tweeted out that the name is OKC Dodgers. Super duper lame.

The Dodgers just tweeted out that the name is OKC Dodgers. Super duper lame.

COMPLETELY agree. We have now lost anything that is specific to Oklahoma, or Oklahoma City.

COMPLETELY agree. We have now lost anything that is specific to Oklahoma, or Oklahoma City.

Just as an aside, saw some tweets generally agreeing with this idea from Steve Lackmeyer (sp). Bonehead choice on their part, and I can't believe the people all excited over this because of a blue baseball cap with the letters "OKC" hot glued to the front.

I love it, but I'm also not from Oklahoma and really have no rich history here. I think it will be good though because the Dodgers are an easily recognizable brand and it may bring the quality of baseball played here up, maybe even put butts in seats.

I can understand why some people don't like the change, it seems the large majority is embracing it.

I guarantee you they'll sell way more merchandise than the Redhawks ever did. I don't recall ever seeing anyone wear the Redhawks gaer.

The Dodgers just tweeted out that the name is OKC Dodgers. Super duper lame.

Yeah. I actually came around on the name and brand later that day. I think it'll work out well. Hopefully this is a long time affiliation.

Yeah. I actually came around on the name and brand later that day. I think it'll work out well. Hopefully this is a long time affiliation.

Color me a pessimist, but there are lots of things that bug me about this. I hate the name, that's a given, it trashes OKC small but colorful minor league baseball history. And I've documented that elsewhere. Mind you, I hated the Redhawks name for the same reasons I hate the Dodgers - it has absolutely nothing to do with OKC baseball history - it was a defunct presumptive NHL branding effort back when an OKC investment group was duped into thinking we were in the running for a "big league" hockey team by ol' Gary Betteman et al. But there are other reasons this name is just a superficial coat of blue paint that may look good for a while, but underneath is an unprimed surface.

More broadly, however, the Dodgers having their AAA franchise in OKC bucks the trend of MLB teams moving their farm teams *closer*, not farther away. The whole reason we lost the Rangers and then the Astros affiliation was because their owners wanted their farm clubs closer. Also, the logo/name makes the team absolutely dispensable - they can pick up and move anywhere else and plug in as the "Dodgers." From their side of the coin, its an efficient business move, without question. From an OKC baseball perspective, I realize people are all giddy about getting a blue cap with the letters "OKC" hot-glued to the front, but in the broader perspective of how hard a lot of folks have worked over several decades to keep minor league baseball in OKC, I have a tough time feeling very good about any of this.

Keep in mind the national branding helps OKC not one bit. No one in Huntsville gives a crapola about OKC having a baseball team named the Dodgers. And no one in LA cares much, either, except to know "oh, yeah, they just (sent him down\called him up) from OKC."

Sorry if I sound cynical in all this, and I say this as someone who initially thought the Dodgers affiliation was a neat deal. But as things are settling out, there are tea leaves to be read that don't leave me feeling warm and fuzzy over the long haul. That said, I hope the new owners will at least remove the horrendous tarp off the first-baseline upper deck.

It is what it is, of course, and I have no say, but as someone who remembers the 89ers, Harry Valentine, and the Hamptons, it just kinds seems like we've collectively thrown dirt on their names. Oh, well. C'est la vie.

I would bet that the concerns/opposition is mainly concentrated with people over 40 who have some sort of nostalgic tie to the 89ers.

Being in that category myself and having gone to tons of games at the old All Sports Stadium, I was rather hoping that name would be resurrected -- it's pretty great IMO.

But now I see the wisdom in all this. If I was the team owner, I'd leverage the Dodger brand to the hilt. And let's face it, we're only losing the Redhawks brand which nobody seems to care about.

I would bet that the concerns/opposition is mainly concentrated with people over 40 who have some sort of nostalgic tie to the 89ers.

Being in that category myself and having gone to tons of games at the old All Sports Stadium, I was rather hoping that name would be resurrected -- it's pretty great IMO.



True on both counts, but please keep in mind it isn't just nostalgia for nostalgia's sake. My whole point is that if not for the work of Harry Valentine and later the Hamptons back in an era when minor league baseball was a really tough sell, and more than one rumor circulated that the team might fold because it just couldn't be made profitable, somehow these folks slugged it out. And without those efforts from those people, we wouldn't have this "Dodger hybrid," or the Bricktown Ballpark, or blue baseball caps. I think that history deserves more than a blue ball cap from a team nickname for another city. That's all.



But now I see the wisdom in all this. If I was the team owner, I'd leverage the Dodger brand to the hilt. And let's face it, we're only losing the Redhawks brand which nobody seems to care about.

Oh, no argument that Redhawks was an idiotic name that should never have been trotted out there - for precisely the same reasons, ignoring the fact it was intended for the abortive NHL franchise. Every time I thought of "Redhawks," I couldn't escape the imagery of the little brown "George the Chickenhawk" from the old Warner Brothers cartoons of the 40's-50's. Just pointless.

The irony to me is that we recognize no one cared about the Redhawks name, yet some embrace the Dodger name...because it has so much relevance to a team that has absolutely nothing to do with OKC. Wish Steve Lackmeyer still lurked about here because he had commented on this topic a few times on Twitter when it broke.

Oh well, as I said, it's done, nothing I can do about it. C'est la vie.

Way over 40 and I love the new name, colors and affiliation. Red hawks was better than 89ers and iconic Dodgers better than both.

Way over 40 and I love the new name, colors and affiliation. Red hawks was better than 89ers and iconic Dodgers better than both.

Well, to each their own. I can understand, at least conceptually, why folks like the Dodgers even though I stridently disagree with it. But I can't understand why anyone would prefer the Redhawks to the 89ers. Just no tie to...anything...

Color me a pessimist, but there are lots of things that bug me about this. I hate the name, that's a given, it trashes OKC small but colorful minor league baseball history. And I've documented that elsewhere. Mind you, I hated the Redhawks name for the same reasons I hate the Dodgers - it has absolutely nothing to do with OKC baseball history - it was a defunct presumptive NHL branding effort back when an OKC investment group was duped into thinking we were in the running for a "big league" hockey team by ol' Gary Betteman et al. But there are other reasons this name is just a superficial coat of blue paint that may look good for a while, but underneath is an unprimed surface.

More broadly, however, the Dodgers having their AAA franchise in OKC bucks the trend of MLB teams moving their farm teams *closer*, not farther away. The whole reason we lost the Rangers and then the Astros affiliation was because their owners wanted their farm clubs closer. Also, the logo/name makes the team absolutely dispensable - they can pick up and move anywhere else and plug in as the "Dodgers." From their side of the coin, its an efficient business move, without question. From an OKC baseball perspective, I realize people are all giddy about getting a blue cap with the letters "OKC" hot-glued to the front, but in the broader perspective of how hard a lot of folks have worked over several decades to keep minor league baseball in OKC, I have a tough time feeling very good about any of this.

Keep in mind the national branding helps OKC not one bit. No one in Huntsville gives a crapola about OKC having a baseball team named the Dodgers. And no one in LA cares much, either, except to know "oh, yeah, they just (sent him down\called him up) from OKC."

Sorry if I sound cynical in all this, and I say this as someone who initially thought the Dodgers affiliation was a neat deal. But as things are settling out, there are tea leaves to be read that don't leave me feeling warm and fuzzy over the long haul. That said, I hope the new owners will at least remove the horrendous tarp off the first-baseline upper deck.

It is what it is, of course, and I have no say, but as someone who remembers the 89ers, Harry Valentine, and the Hamptons, it just kinds seems like we've collectively thrown dirt on their names. Oh, well. C'est la vie.

I think you are over estimating the mileage issue here, Dave. Roundrock is 30 miles closer to Arlington than it is to OKC. Roundrock though is almost 280 miles closer to Houston than OKC. So why did Houston abandon RR if the trend is to be closer? No sir, the Rangers affiliated with RR because Nolan Ryan is the owner. If the trend was closer, Houston would have held on to RR.

Color me a pessimist, but there are lots of things that bug me about this. I hate the name, that's a given, it trashes OKC small but colorful minor league baseball history. And I've documented that elsewhere. Mind you, I hated the Redhawks name for the same reasons I hate the Dodgers - it has absolutely nothing to do with OKC baseball history - it was a defunct presumptive NHL branding effort back when an OKC investment group was duped into thinking we were in the running for a "big league" hockey team by ol' Gary Betteman et al. But there are other reasons this name is just a superficial coat of blue paint that may look good for a while, but underneath is an unprimed surface.

More broadly, however, the Dodgers having their AAA franchise in OKC bucks the trend of MLB teams moving their farm teams *closer*, not farther away. The whole reason we lost the Rangers and then the Astros affiliation was because their owners wanted their farm clubs closer. Also, the logo/name makes the team absolutely dispensable - they can pick up and move anywhere else and plug in as the "Dodgers." From their side of the coin, its an efficient business move, without question. From an OKC baseball perspective, I realize people are all giddy about getting a blue cap with the letters "OKC" hot-glued to the front, but in the broader perspective of how hard a lot of folks have worked over several decades to keep minor league baseball in OKC, I have a tough time feeling very good about any of this.

Keep in mind the national branding helps OKC not one bit. No one in Huntsville gives a crapola about OKC having a baseball team named the Dodgers. And no one in LA cares much, either, except to know "oh, yeah, they just (sent him down\called him up) from OKC."

Sorry if I sound cynical in all this, and I say this as someone who initially thought the Dodgers affiliation was a neat deal. But as things are settling out, there are tea leaves to be read that don't leave me feeling warm and fuzzy over the long haul. That said, I hope the new owners will at least remove the horrendous tarp off the first-baseline upper deck.

It is what it is, of course, and I have no say, but as someone who remembers the 89ers, Harry Valentine, and the Hamptons, it just kinds seems like we've collectively thrown dirt on their names. Oh, well. C'est la vie.

sorry but you don't know what you are talking about ... the A's just moved from Sacramento to Nashville rockies from the springs to albaquere Houston from okc to fresno .. ect ...

steve can say what he wants but the OKC dodgers brand and logos .. markets 100's of times better than the 89ers would .. this is not longer an affliation .. it is dodger ownership .. and is a great move for okc ..

sorry but you don't know what you are talking about ... the A's just moved from Sacramento to Nashville rockies from the springs to albaquere Houston from okc to fresno .. ect ...

steve can say what he wants but the OKC dodgers brand and logos .. markets 100's of times better than the 89ers would .. this is not longer an affliation .. it is dodger ownership .. and is a great move for okc ..

Okay, mea culpa, I need to stand up when I've been proven wrong. Thought I had read more about other clubs moving their farm teams closer, and I guess that's wrong.

That notwithstanding, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the merits of buring OKC's baseball history in another city's team moniker. No one will be able to rationalize that to me.

I think you are over estimating the mileage issue here, Dave. Roundrock is 30 miles closer to Arlington than it is to OKC. Roundrock though is almost 280 miles closer to Houston than OKC. So why did Houston abandon RR if the trend is to be closer? No sir, the Rangers affiliated with RR because Nolan Ryan is the owner. If the trend was closer, Houston would have held on to RR.
Yep, more to due with ownership changes and the Express being owned by Ryan and his sons before he was involved in either major league ownership group. Ryan being chased out of the Rangers ownership group and welcomed into the Astros organization initiated the latest change. When RR started they were an Astros affiliate, when Ryan became part of the Rangers ownership group after the Hick's debacle that is when they swapped. The best thing was getting OKC out of that dysfunctional Texas ownership situation as Daniels kills the Rangers.

The whole consolidation of minor league teams close by is really a Texas thing since Hicks kicked Tulsa out of the Rangers party for his own team in Frisco. After LA moved the AAA team to OKC the Rockies moved their AAA team to ABQ and the AA moved from Tulsa to New Britain, Connecticut. The only Colorado based minor league team is the Rookie league team in Grand Junction. A ball teams in Boise, Idaho (short season), Ashville, North Carolina and Advanced A in Modesto, California.

Hang on...I thought baseball was going away and we were converting the ballpark to a soccer field..?

Hang on...I thought baseball was going away and we were converting the ballpark to a soccer field..?

Wait your turn!!!! My 20 lane highway and five stack interchanges are ahead of that!!!!!! ;)

And let's face it, we're only losing the Redhawks brand which nobody seems to care about.

Much like the game of baseball itself. Does anyone still care about major league baseball?

I make the comment somewhat in jest. Because yes...I know that there are 10-15,000 fans at every game, and baseball still goes on..and there is still a World Series. But in a day and age, where the NFL and the NBA are about as big as they have ever been...baseball seems to be a dying sport, in regards to fandom.

Hang on...I thought baseball was going away and we were converting the ballpark to a soccer field..?

We could only hope that were the case.

Much like the game of baseball itself. Does anyone still care about major league baseball?

I make the comment somewhat in jest. Because yes...I know that there are 10-15,000 fans at every game, and baseball still goes on..and there is still a World Series. But in a day and age, where the NFL and the NBA are about as big as they have ever been...baseball seems to be a dying sport, in regards to fandom.

MLB records seventh best attendance total ever in 2014 | MLB.com (http://m.mlb.com/news/article/96990912/mlb-records-seventh-best-attendance-total-ever-in-2014)

Major League Baseball finished the 2014 regular season with an attendance of 73,739,622, marking the seventh highest total of all-time, it was announced today. Competitive balance throughout the game and exciting late-year pennant races have led to the last decade producing all 10 of the best-attended seasons in Major League Baseball history.
The final weekend of the season drew 1,648,624 fans to ballparks across the country, the second highest weekend attendance of the season, and the largest final weekend of a season since 2008, when 1,683,763 fans attended games. Overall, the 2014 season posted 17 weekends with at least 1.5 million in attendance, also marking the largest since 2008, when there were 19 such weekends.

The 2014 total finished just 0.4 percent lower than 2013, despite playing five fewer dates (2,421) than last year (2,426). In addition, the 2014 average attendance of 30,458 per game was just 0.2 percent lower than the 2013 average of 30,515.

Among the highlights of the season:
•Twelve Clubs surpassed the 2.5-million mark, including five that topped the three-million mark.
•The five to reach three million have all now reached three million in consecutive seasons, including the New York Yankees (16 straight); the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (12 straight); the St. Louis Cardinals (11 straight); the San Francisco Giants (five straight); and the Los Angeles Dodgers (three straight).
•The Pittsburgh Pirates established a single-season attendance record of 2,442,564 in 2014, breaking the previous mark of 2,436,139 set during the first season at PNC Park in 2001. The Pirates also posted 23 sellouts during the season, tying the club record set in 2013.
•The Washington Nationals drew 2,579,389 on the season, topping the 2.5-million mark for the second consecutive season and for only the third time in club history (also their debut season in 2005). The Nationals recorded eight sellouts, tied with 2012 for the most in a single season.
•The San Francisco Giants, who sold out every game this season, ended the 2014 season with 327 consecutive sell-outs, dating back to October 1, 2010, for the longest active streak in the Majors.
•The St. Louis Cardinals attracted 3,540,649 fans in 2014, the second largest attendance in the Majors this season, and the second highest attendance in franchise history behind 2007 (3,552,180). Led by 52 sellouts and an average of 43,712 per game, the 2014 season was the second time in franchise history with 40,000 or more fans at every game (also 2007).
•The Detroit Tigers, who recorded 27 sellouts during the 2014 season, posted the fifth largest total attendance (2,917,209) in the 114-year history of the franchise.
•The Los Angeles Dodgers led the Majors for the second consecutive season with 3,782,337. The Dodgers surpassed the 3.7-million mark for the sixth time in club history, and it was their second highest total overall, behind 2007 (3,857,036).
•The New York Yankees led the American League with 3,401,624, marking the 12th straight season they have drawn the most among AL Clubs.
•The Baltimore Orioles drew reached the 2.4-million mark for the first time since the 2005 season.
•The Kansas City Royals posted their highest attendance (1,956,482) since 1991.
•The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim logged nine sellouts in 2014, and their attendance of 44,561 on August 7th against the Los Angeles Dodgers established the largest regular season crowd at Angel Stadium since 1998.


To paraphrase Mark Twain: The reports of the death of baseball are greatly exaggerated.

Get yer (soccer) feet off my (baseball) lawn!


(but feel free to build a soccer lawn nearby, I'll visit)

Hang on...I thought baseball was going away and we were converting the ballpark to a soccer field..?


Wait your turn!!!! My 20 lane highway and five stack interchanges are ahead of that!!!!!! ;)

:rude: It's a new day, both of you guys will have to wait.

Whatever happened to the OKC Oakland Raiders' stadium project? LMAO... That needs to be built first.

The Raiders will go to San Antonio before they come here. Not to get off track.

MLB records seventh best attendance total ever in 2014 | MLB.com (http://m.mlb.com/news/article/96990912/mlb-records-seventh-best-attendance-total-ever-in-2014)

Major League Baseball finished the 2014 regular season with an attendance of 73,739,622, marking the seventh highest total of all-time, it was announced today. Competitive balance throughout the game and exciting late-year pennant races have led to the last decade producing all 10 of the best-attended seasons in Major League Baseball history.
The final weekend of the season drew 1,648,624 fans to ballparks across the country, the second highest weekend attendance of the season, and the largest final weekend of a season since 2008, when 1,683,763 fans attended games. Overall, the 2014 season posted 17 weekends with at least 1.5 million in attendance, also marking the largest since 2008, when there were 19 such weekends.

The 2014 total finished just 0.4 percent lower than 2013, despite playing five fewer dates (2,421) than last year (2,426). In addition, the 2014 average attendance of 30,458 per game was just 0.2 percent lower than the 2013 average of 30,515.

Among the highlights of the season:
•Twelve Clubs surpassed the 2.5-million mark, including five that topped the three-million mark.
•The five to reach three million have all now reached three million in consecutive seasons, including the New York Yankees (16 straight); the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (12 straight); the St. Louis Cardinals (11 straight); the San Francisco Giants (five straight); and the Los Angeles Dodgers (three straight).
•The Pittsburgh Pirates established a single-season attendance record of 2,442,564 in 2014, breaking the previous mark of 2,436,139 set during the first season at PNC Park in 2001. The Pirates also posted 23 sellouts during the season, tying the club record set in 2013.
•The Washington Nationals drew 2,579,389 on the season, topping the 2.5-million mark for the second consecutive season and for only the third time in club history (also their debut season in 2005). The Nationals recorded eight sellouts, tied with 2012 for the most in a single season.
•The San Francisco Giants, who sold out every game this season, ended the 2014 season with 327 consecutive sell-outs, dating back to October 1, 2010, for the longest active streak in the Majors.
•The St. Louis Cardinals attracted 3,540,649 fans in 2014, the second largest attendance in the Majors this season, and the second highest attendance in franchise history behind 2007 (3,552,180). Led by 52 sellouts and an average of 43,712 per game, the 2014 season was the second time in franchise history with 40,000 or more fans at every game (also 2007).
•The Detroit Tigers, who recorded 27 sellouts during the 2014 season, posted the fifth largest total attendance (2,917,209) in the 114-year history of the franchise.
•The Los Angeles Dodgers led the Majors for the second consecutive season with 3,782,337. The Dodgers surpassed the 3.7-million mark for the sixth time in club history, and it was their second highest total overall, behind 2007 (3,857,036).
•The New York Yankees led the American League with 3,401,624, marking the 12th straight season they have drawn the most among AL Clubs.
•The Baltimore Orioles drew reached the 2.4-million mark for the first time since the 2005 season.
•The Kansas City Royals posted their highest attendance (1,956,482) since 1991.
•The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim logged nine sellouts in 2014, and their attendance of 44,561 on August 7th against the Los Angeles Dodgers established the largest regular season crowd at Angel Stadium since 1998.


To paraphrase Mark Twain: The reports of the death of baseball are greatly exaggerated.

Those are awesome stats. (I'll tell you, just like the cry baby that just PM'd me about the same subject matter. Attendance isn't a barometer for success, or popularity.)



Go take a poll at any elementary school,....


Ask all the kids who their favorite NFL player is..... You'll probably get over run with any group of 10-12 names, from a number of teams around the country.

Ask the kids who their favorite NBA player is.......You'll probably get a group of about 5 or 6 different names, that the kids these days love to follow.

Ask those same kids who their favorite MLB player is......and you're likely to hear crickets chirping.


Yes, we all know that the old school baseball fans want to hang on to all that they have. And that's cool. I'm not knocking it, as I still see it as a more viable form of entertainment than soccer, or hockey......but the game that was once "Americas Pastime," it is exactly that...past its time.

Those are awesome stats. (I'll tell you, just like the cry baby that just PM'd me about the same subject matter. Attendance isn't a barometer for success, or popularity.)



Go take a poll at any elementary school,....


Ask all the kids who their favorite NFL player is..... You'll probably get over run with any group of 10-12 names, from a number of teams around the country.

Ask the kids who their favorite NBA player is.......You'll probably get a group of about 5 or 6 different names, that the kids these days love to follow.

Ask those same kids who their favorite MLB player is......and you're likely to hear crickets chirping.


Yes, we all know that the old school baseball fans want to hang on to all that they have. And that's cool. I'm not knocking it, as I still see it as a more viable form of entertainment than soccer, or hockey......but the game that was once "Americas Pastime," it is exactly that...past its time.

I guess we will just have to disagree on what we take away from attendance figures and the polling of grade school kids to determine popularity and success and what is the more accurate gauge of future viability. Ask those same grade school kids, pre- Thunder, who their favorite NBA player was and you would probably have gotten a blank stare. If you went to the same school and asked who their favorite football player is, more than likely the answer would be a college player. Does that mean the NCAA is more popular than the NFL? I think and believe that as these kids age and become mature that it is quite possible they will appreciate things that they do not appreciate in their youth.

I guess we will just have to disagree on what we take away from attendance figures and the polling of grade school kids to determine popularity and success and what is the more accurate gauge of future viability. Ask those same grade school kids, pre- Thunder, who their favorite NBA player was and you would probably have gotten a blank stare. If you went to the same school and asked who their favorite football player is, more than likely the answer would be a college player. Does that mean the NCAA is more popular than the NFL? I think and believe that as these kids age and become mature that it is quite possible they will appreciate things that they do not appreciate in their youth.


As the median age of Baseball fans/World Series viewers, continues to skyrocket to levels never before seen, the exact opposite can be said for fans of the NFL and NBA. So, that is something I would typically use a good indicator of the future viability. I'm not knocking the sport itself.......so don't get butthurt about it. But, the MLB continues to drop the ball in marketing individual players, and/or teams to create new fans. At some point in time.....there will be a tipping point.

Oklahoma City Dodgers, I plan to attend more games than when they were the RedHawks (name that was intended for the '97 OKC NHL expansion franchise).

I don't follow MLB like I use to growing up. I was an NL Pittsburgh Pirates (Clemente, Stargell) and an AL Baltimore Orioles (Robinsons-Brooks & Frank, Powell ) fan for years until they meet in the 1971 World Series. I lost interest after they beat up on each other; seven game series in which Pittsburgh beat Baltimore 4-3. That series killed my appetite for MLB; lost interest after that.

Fast forward to the late 90s when I lived in 'Cowtown,' I followed the Rangers, parent club for RedHawks. There were a ton of grand parents (Baby Boomers) who brought their grandchildren to the games. There may be a new wave of fans generated through that generation gap which may help baseball continue to prosper. My grand children have already expressed interest in the new Dodger affiliation. My daughter and sons, don't like baseball, so it's up to 'big daddy' to take them to the ballpark. I'll receive full custody of my 14-year old grandson who use to live in Round Rock, TX; he's already putting me through a second stage of adolescence. Glad that he is interested in baseball & soccer.

Now, I'm THUNDERSTRUCK!

Much like the game of baseball itself. Does anyone still care about major league baseball?

I make the comment somewhat in jest. Because yes...I know that there are 10-15,000 fans at every game, and baseball still goes on..and there is still a World Series. But in a day and age, where the NFL and the NBA are about as big as they have ever been...baseball seems to be a dying sport, in regards to fandom.

I do not have a link to the article but several years ago there was an in depth article that claimed an interesting trend, where the following in baseball had become more local/regional than any of the other major american sports, with a distinct pattern of it doing the better in the cities/metros that can and do pay above league averages (usually the largest metros in the US). So while it was no longer the national sport, it was still very popular in good markets to be in, but with the downside of outside of those regions fan interest has been declining for several decades and even more precipitously where no major team is present.

They speculated it was at least in part due to baseball is the only major sport that does not do revenue sharing to a significant extent or salary caps and ranked only ahead of hockey of how well american viewers considered it watchable on TV (though soccer was not on even on the list to vote so probably still above that).

Even as bad as the Rockies have been in recent years they are still among the top of MLB in attendance and the majority of the people attending games here is twentysomethings. Some go for the baseball (including some of my co-workers) and many go for the party deck or go to enjoy a nice summer night out at the ballpark with beer and friends for a relatively cheap price. There are also a lot of kids with families at the games. A lot of those that go to games aren't watching the Fox or ESPN Game of the Week broadcasts but they enjoy the ballpark experience. Baseball is very regional, 81 home games and local TV contracts drives a lot of that and people follow a team or teams and not the whole sport itself. With some local TV contracts dwarfing national TV contracts it is definitely a regional sport. Most of those with the huge contracts also tend to have close to full stadiums. The NFL is built on an entirely different model because all of the TV contracts are through the league office (except preseason).

I have a mini ticket package with the Redhawks for years and now the Dodgers. To me baseball is much better in person. I think the problem with baseball is two things:
1) the lack of likeable superstars. Players like Trout and Harper are big time, but there are paper bags with more personality.
2) games are just too long and boring. and it is encouraging that they are taking steps to shorten it a bit. although they tried to do that with college football games and they seem longer now.

the playing field seems to have been leveled a bit with recently doormat teams such as Royals, Pirates, and Nationals making playoff pushes/runs in recent years. So that might have helped with attendance some.

Even as bad as the Rockies have been in recent years they are still among the top of MLB in attendance and the majority of the people attending games here is twentysomethings. Some go for the baseball (including some of my co-workers) and many go for the party deck or go to enjoy a nice summer night out at the ballpark with beer and friends for a relatively cheap price. There are also a lot of kids with families at the games. A lot of those that go to games aren't watching the Fox or ESPN Game of the Week broadcasts but they enjoy the ballpark experience. Baseball is very regional, 81 home games and local TV contracts drives a lot of that and people follow a team or teams and not the whole sport itself. With some local TV contracts dwarfing national TV contracts it is definitely a regional sport. Most of those with the huge contracts also tend to have close to full stadiums. The NFL is built on an entirely different model because all of the TV contracts are through the league office (except preseason).

I have some friends in the Denver area and they have used groupon over the years with Rockies tickets. I dunno if they still do that or not but its not a bad way to get younger people into the ballpark for the experience.

There's a George Will (renowned baseball fan and writer) interview by Charlie Rose (PBS) that took place in the last year, preceding a new George Will book about baseball I believe, that is very insightful about baseball fans and popularity vs other sports. If you're interested in this topic I highly recommend you find and watch it. The short of it is, he said something like (complete paraphrase, sorry)...

80% of NFL fans have never even been to an NFL football game, but they don't need to because TV is what makes an NFL fan... TV doesn't make baseball fans, being at the ballpark makes baseball fans.

I'm certain I chopped that up severely. Seriously, go find that interview for the much better version.

There's a George Will (renowned baseball fan and writer) interview by Charlie Rose (PBS) that took place in the last year, preceding a new George Will book about baseball I believe, that is very insightful about baseball fans and popularity vs other sports. If you're interested in this topic I highly recommend you find and watch it. The short of it is, he said something like (complete paraphrase, sorry)...

80% of NFL fans have never even been to an NFL football game, but they don't need to because TV is what makes an NFL fan... TV doesn't make baseball fans, being at the ballpark makes baseball fans.

I'm certain I chopped that up severely. Seriously, go find that interview for the much better version.

One of the things that I've always thought put baseball behind the proverbial 8-ball in terms of television was that, by it's nature, baseball doesn't translate to TV very well. The odd field shape, the odd angles, the long stretches of limited or no activity, Watching baseball on TV is a bit of a square-peg-round-hole proposition. Football, on the other hand, is virtually MADE for television even though the game predates TV by decades. The rectangular field, the focal area of play, the predictable cycle of action, etc. Heck, that natural translation of the game to TV is what (just as the note above points out) has made it so successful and, in turn, even hurt in-game attendance in some cases - certainly the college game is starting to feel this.

The other thing to me is that no *one* baseball game means very much - I mean, its ordinarily just 1 of 162. But each week in the 13-week (or so) college season or 18-plus-playoff-weeks in the NFL season is important in its own right, setting aside the one or two patsies on each schedule. Each game is an event. Attending a baseball game is almost incidental to itself. I remember going to 89er games back in the day to girl watch as much as watch the games themselves...unfortunately they never returned the favor LOL :)

I don't know that baseball can overcome this particular problem. It is what it is - but I think they can do something about the length of their season. That number of games is..well...a *lot* :)

Football is built for the short attention span society.

Baseball games (in markets other than NYC, Boston or Chicago) can be cheap, Rockpile tickets at Coors Field are something like $5.00. The cheapest Broncos ticket is around $100.00, 8 home games versus 81.

Football is built for the short attention span society.

Very shortsided, broad stroke. Obviously disagree completely. It would be just as ridiculous to say baseball is for the OCD crowd who wants to keep doing the same thing over and over and over and over.


Baseball games (in markets other than NYC, Boston or Chicago) can be cheap, Rockpile tickets at Coors Field are something like $5.00. The cheapest Broncos ticket is around $100.00, 8 home games versus 81.

Again, reinforces the point about the pointlessly excessive length of the MLB season, where arguably the only reason to have so many games is to sell $5 tickets. Unfortunately, the NFL does something similar by generally forcing season ticket holders to buy equally worthless "pre-season" tickets as part of most season ticket packages.