GDT padres game 3 6-16

[thewupk]

There is a huge difference between being just over .500 and having the best record in the NL, but I think you know that.

If your point is that every baseball observer would be shocked the Braves were over .500 at this point, I think you are wrong. I don't think anyone would be hugely surprised that a team predicted to be slightly under .500 ended up being slightly over .500 through June.

Particularly not a team with as much young talent as the Braves.

this is sort of a weird discussion because no one was talking about your being wrong, but you decided you needed to interject about how you were actually correct.

Let me try and break this down for you. The Braves increase in attendance is because they are winning. If they were playing like virtually everybody thought they would then it would decrease. If they were merely 5 games over .500 at this point then it's likely attendance would be flat. Any thought of what the attendance is going to be at the start of the season should be directly tied to how you think the Braves will play.

So I stand by my original comment. It's was a logical conclusion that attendance would drop if you are of the belief the Braves would end the season in the 70's in wins. If you thought the Braves would be over .500 at this point then yes you shouldn't think attendance would drop from last season.

[Enscheff]

Winning trumps all when it comes to attendance. Fact.

Yes, attendance would have declined if the Braves were playing as projected. To argue any other side is nothing more than being contrarian in an attempt to prove some point that nobody cares about. Southcrack does this often, usually centered around semantics, and never actually proves anything one way or the other...that way nobody can later claim he was "wrong". He then acts like he never asserted an actual point, therefore he wasn't "wrong"...yet continues to argue...semantics...over and over.

The point is the winning probably allows the Braves to add at the deadline, and allows them to project attendance that supports a $120M+ payroll in 2019. That would not have happened for a 78 win team. Period.

This season has pretty much been the "if everything goes right" scenario we sometimes see in year 4 of rebuilds, and it bodes very well for the team as long as AA doesn't screw it up by blowing resources on a SP that will break down and return zero value.

[Southcack77]

Winning trumps all when it comes to attendance. Fact.

Yes, attendance would have declined if the Braves were playing as projected. To argue any other side is nothing more than being contrarian in an attempt to prove some point that nobody cares about. Southcrack does this often, usually centered around semantics, and never actually proves anything one way or the other...that way nobody can later claim he was "wrong". He then acts like he never asserted an actual point, therefore he wasn't "wrong"...yet continues to argue...semantics...over and over.

The point is the winning probably allows the Braves to add at the deadline, and allows them to project attendance that supports a $120M+ payroll in 2019. That would not have happened for a 78 win team. Period.

This season has pretty much been the "if everything goes right" scenario we sometimes see in year 4 of rebuilds, and it bodes very well for the team as long as AA doesn't screw it up by blowing resources on a SP that will break down and return zero value.

I try to be precise about what I am and am not predicting. I don't always succeed. It's difficult not to say something stupid. Particularly for someone as dim-witted as I tend to be.

But in this case, I've never suggested that Braves would have maintained attendance with a losing record.

I stated last winter that the Braves attendance would be dictated by how long they stayed in the playoff chase.

I was told that attendance always falls off in the second year of a stadium and that the Braves weren't going to have a winning record and that anyone who thought they would have a winning record was not being realistic at all.

Fair enough. I predicted under .500 myself. I didn't want to be unrealistic either. My other predictions are somewhat spectacularly wrong, I think.

The consequence of that was going to be reduced payrolls for ever and lots of doom and gloom.

It is a good thing that they've exceeded expectations on the field and in the turnstiles. I totally agree that should let them spend more money on the roster, though I don't like the murmurs on this subject coming out this days.