Heatcheck Wednesday

One of the standing features here at Ballpark Frankness will be "Heatcheck Wednesday." It is exactly what it sounds like. Each Wednesday, we'll look at the past week's Rays home games and wonder how tolerable they would have been, had they been played outdoors.

Couple of caveats to the methodology. First, we acknowledge the Rays say they will be able to make the ballpark cooler than if people were actually sitting outside. Also, we know the games aren't played on the same day every year, nor is the temperature the same every day of every year. And we know there will be a fabric roof to prevent rainouts (but we decided to track how many rainy game nights fans may be in for).

So you know, we're making our unscientific measurements at game time. We're grouping things into three categories: How you feeling? Hot. Hot. Hot.; Hot, but nothing a cold beverage couldn't cure; Take me out to the ball game.

Here are the totals since the start of the season. (Can you belive we've already played 17 out of the season's 81 home games?)

First totals

How you feeling? Hot. Hot. Hot. ---- 0

Hot, but nothing a cold beverage couldn't cure. ---- 0

Take me out the ball game. ---- 17

Also, so far we've had no really rainy nights.

So far, there is no really debate. St. Petersburg, even on most afternoons, is pleasant in April. We'll find out if May -- when the Rays play at home 16 times -- is a different story.

Comments

[get-smart]

Aaron, Why don't you take the air conditioning out of your house. You can then give us a blow by blow description of your comfort level: For example: Last night was very comfortable. I needed one blanket only or it was so HOT,HOT,HOT I didn't fall asleep 'till 4:30AM. We can collect and use this data for future projects.

[Aaron Sharockman]

Get-smart. No a/c in my place. (Well actually I have a wall unit, but it's not on). Maybe I get a better breeze then you :)

But feel free to play along. That's what this all about.

[Thomas]

I am NOT a PAID Blogger, Rays employee or POWW member. I have never commented in this paper before. I live in Old Northeast and I have been taking my wife and two boys ages 3 and 4 to games for three years, over 175 games in all. I have been a Rays season ticket holder since I moved here. People and their personal agendas aside, WE don't support the team or the stadium WE have. If the stadium and its air conditioning is so great, why don't YOU attend more often. YOU say it is because we don't have a winning team. Discuss these FACTS:

2001
Tampa Bay Rays Record - 62-100
Rays Average Attendance - 16,029
Pittsburgh Pirates Record - 62-100
Pirates Average Attendance - 30,742

2002
Tampa Bay Rays Record - 55-106
Rays Average Attendance - 13,157
Milwaukee Brewers Record - 56-106
Brewers Average Attendance - 24,310

2003
Tampa Bay Rays Record - 63-99
Rays Average Attendance - 13,070
Cleveland Indians Record - 68-94
Indians Average Attendance - 21,358

2004
Tampa Bay Rays Record - 70-91
Rays Average Attendance - 16,139
Seattle Mariners Record - 63-99
Mariners Average Attendance - 36,305

2005
Tampa Bay Rays Record - 67-95
Rays Average Attendance - 14,502
Detroit Tigers Record - 71-91
Tigers Average Attendance - 25,306

2006
Tampa Bay Rays Record - 61-101
Rays Average Attendance - 16,910
Baltimore Orioles Record - 62-100
Orioles Average Attendance - 30,742

2007
Tampa Bay Rays Record - 66-96
Rays Average Attendance - 17,148
Houston Astros Record - 73-89
Astros Average Attendance - 30,742

2008 Year to Date
Tampa Bay Rays Record - 14-12
Rays Average Attendance - 18,867
Pittsburgh Pirates Record - 12-16
Pirates Average Attendance - 33,824

2001 - 2007
Tampa Bay Rays Avg. Record - 62-100
Rays Average Attendance - 16,029
Seven Cities Avg. Record - 66-96
Seven Cities Avg. Attendance - 30,742

If we could average what Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Seattle, Detroit, Baltimore did in attendance with similar losing records AND a new ballpark as they all built, with the average attendee spending a gross of $43.00 per person per event, (Dining, Parking, Tickets, Apparel, Drinks ECT...) that would translate into more than 1/3 of a billion dollars (13,628 avg. attendance Difference x 81 games x 7 years x $43 per attendee = $355,533,947.19 to be exact) in additional consumer spending and taxes downtown over the next 7 years. That is more than 30 downtown bars and restaurants with $1.5 million in annual sales COMBINED and TOTALLED over 7 Years.

The same number hypothetically would work with Tropicana Field as well, but without the additional year round economic stimulus of redevelopment for the current Tropicana Field site. If WE support the team where it is, then WE have a right to complain about change, unless the change WE want is for the Rays to leave. Leaving St. Pete or Florida entirely would not be the fault of the rays. It would be the lackluster support of US as fans.

And as to PARKING, free enterprise will take care of that to be sure. The minute we break ground people will be falling over each others to get into the parking business. (5000 cars x 81 games x $15 per car x 10 years totals $60,750,000 in parking revenue alone, not counting land / retail value or air rights) I think this income and investment potential will more than motivate private investors (even the Rays) to build parking more than sufficient for the game and further supplementing our downtown parking needs.

Do I want a new stadium? - YES
Do I think the Rays should pay their fair share? - YES
Do I think that this would be a great, once in a generation opportunity for US to lose? YES
Can WE work TOGETHER to figure out how to get it done and mitigate community and taxation damage while figuring out how to MAXIMIZE community benefits, taxable income, stimulate consumer and tourist spending, create jobs and enhance the quality of life? TO BE DETERMINED

[Bland]

Mr. Sharockman,

The following is a post I had on Howard's blog. Perhaps it is best on yours? At any rate, I suspect Mr. Harrison will not answer my questions, maybe you would like to give it a go?

Mr. Harrison,

Given that Hines "estimates" $835 Million in tax revenues would be generated in developing the existing Trop Site, I have an alternative question?

What tax revenue would be generated over the same period if the Al Lang site was developed instead? Surely, this property would bring in a multiple of revenue to the City and County without additional investment of the citizens.

If our sole purpose is to generate tax revenue with a development then why not develop the more expensive an attractive waterfront property? Surely, that would be the least risk to assure success and tax revenue.

The stadium is already built. It appears successful development at the Trop site is much more of a risk?

Yes, I know that was not the task given the Hines Development Group. If we are seeking the best solution to raise tax revenue compared to available alternatives; which is best and less risk to the taxpayers?

Any way you look at it we can build a stadium that generates relatively little tax revenue and arguably a risky Trop Site development that is estimated to generate $835 Million over 35 years or Al Lang could be developed and generate much more revenue.

Is that really our objective? Of course, I do not want either, but since this tax revenue generation seems to be the main argument to build the new stadium, I as a taxpayer would like to know how much revenue we forego by not developing Al Lang, if of course that is the sole justification.

What are your thoughts Mr. Harrison?

Or Aaron?

[Chuck]

Bland,

As I'm sure you are aware, the anti stadium movement is against any possible development on the Al Lang site, save a one story soup kitchen powered by solar panels.

You'll get no support on this.

[Aaron Sharockman]

Hi, Bland. I'm not sure 11-acre Al Lang would more be valuable than 86-acre Tropicana Field. But assuming it was, I think Mr. Harrison would be happy to make an offer for the land.

But the reason we're still here talking about all this is because the Rays have made this proposal (redevelop the Trop and build a stadium at Al Lang) and the city has agreed to listen.

[Don Mott]

Dear Thomas, One word in your reply sums up the entire reply; hypothetically. First of all you are pulling dollar figures out of thin air that can neither be guaranteed nor proven as fact. Secondly if the Rays had more spectators maybe there would be more interest for a new park. You also fail to mention what the other teams attendance figures were before their new parks were built. Are you trying to imply that new parks will increase attendance? If so please provide evidence.

[Bland]

To Chuck,

There are always alternatives. It can't be just a "soup kitchen" or a new baseball stadium.

To Aaron,

If the City's reason for talking to Hines is to raise tax revenue, should they not concider all alternatives? Again, my question which alternative would provide tax revenue at the least risk to the City's taxpayers.

Is that not the objective of the City Council? What is more prudent?

[Chuck]

Watch it Bland! You had better come out and call for a public park on that land or you're going to have a storm of feces rain down on you like you've never experienced.

Personally, a new baseball stadium suits me just fine but if the public wants a new public park in a downtown area that has a shortage of such things..err...so be it.

Ultimate frisby can be fun also, as many here can attest to.

[Chris Jenkins]

Hey Chuck,
I hope you're not the same Chuck I had such a great time with fishing last night on the seawall. Bait was small and water was low, but good times were had by all in spite of it.

It's nice to have public access to public resources. Last I checked, I wasn't able to walk around in the Trop whenever I felt like it.

Some nights fishing in the bay facing parks are more productive than others, but it's always fun.

Just an off topic aside, here, instead of my usual wall of facts and figures. Wouldn't want everyone to think I'm just a human calculator and history book.

[Tampa Tommy]

I got an idea: Move the team to Tampa!
Sleepy little St Pete proves over and over that they are not "major league"

[Chuck]

Chris,

Hope you didn't hook any manatees! Kidding aside, I like fishing as much as the next guy, provided I'm allowed to bring a cooler full of beer.

[Chris Jenkins]

We're big fans of a cooler of beer...

I like you more and more Chuck. You're funny and smart. I hope you're completely over your inital two dimensional perspective of the folks who think this is just a bum deal.

[Jon McPhee]

Why is it that the Big Deal looks so much like a mating of elephants? Lots of grunting and shoving by the maddened, rutting bulls, total trampling of the smaller critters and foliage, a brief moment of pleasure for the principals, then the winning bull moves on, leaving a pregnant female to carry the product for a couple of years while increasingly vulnerable to predators and having to find forage for two. Then she’s stuck for more years, nursing the progeny along. All without regard to whether the local ecology can support yet another hungry elephant.

I guess one "benefit" is that us little birds and beetles and mice get to pick at the big piles of dung left behind. At what point does “boosterism” morph into “screwsterism?”

Don't just factor in heat. Also humidity. And if you want to be really accurate, walk 20-30 minutes dressed in fan attire, then sit in you house with the A/C off for 3 hours.

And yes, the stadium does have a cover, but that doesn't do you much good when you're walking the half mile to or from your car.

And what about LIGHTNING? And what about WIND, blowing the rain horizontally through the covering onto all fans except those in skyboxes and right behind home plate?

[Chuck]

Chris -

Some of the people here make it way too easy but for the most part I'm done talking about the stadium because I really have nothing to add. I've restructured my "loon" group to Jon McPhee and Don Mott. Everyone else seems cool.

Aaron, your blog is a joke if you can't keep people from posting as others. Check 8:57.

[Kyle]

Heat, Humidity, 3 hours no a/c, all while stuck between a guy who drank a cooler of beer and another fat American.

[rayray]

@Thomas 11:21am 4/30, Thanks for the sensible, thought out, fact inclusive post b/c this development proposal is truely in the best interset of all St. Pete. We need more unity in the community.

Soon as ground breaking begin we'll be on the A+ list for developers looking/ willing to invest.

As for parking, 2 new parking garages are already planned to be built downtown in the next 1 - 2 yrs., plus, if the Rays include a garage in their proposal(which I think they will)rather it be one @Trop site(w/shuttle to bay) or on waterfront site that will be a welcome addition & alleviate the crunch. And, by the time the bayfront stadium is completed, another garage will/should be built by then making for more ample parking as well as more lodging accomodations. This is an exciting time for the city.

Proud St. Pete native & resident.

Go Rays!