Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Hey Chargers, old stadiums produce champions

Did you see the senseless quote from Mark Fabiani of the Chargers in the San Diego Union-Tribune?

“There's a world for a team with an old stadium – a world where you're consistently behind. It's a world you see in baseball all the time,” the Chargers’ current (and Bill Clinton’s former) spin doctor said.

Well, let’s look at the last six World Series winners, see where they played and figure out who’s really behind:

2002: Anaheim Angels (35-year-old stadium)
2003: Florida Marlins (16-year-old stadium)
2004: Boston Red Sox (92-year-old stadium)
2005: Chicago White Sox (14-year-old rebuilt stadium)
2006: St. Louis Cardinals (new ballpark)
2007: Boston Red Sox (95-year-old stadium)

If you look at it, the teams with older stadiums are winning the World Series more times than not.

And oh, by the way, the last two Super Bowl winners were the Indianapolis Colts and New York Giants.

The Colts played in a 23-year-old stadium; the Giants a 31-year-old stadium.

So much for spin doctor Fabiani’s theory that you can’t win in an old house.


lotto philippine result said...

It could challenge the ideas of the people who visit your blog.

john said...

The Chargers keep politicking for a new stadium. They just got a $78 million expansion 10 years ago. No matter what you do they won't be satisfied. Sayanora.

kareem said...

I have never seen a stadium get one hit, steal one base or pitch a shut out. Stadiums do not win games; players and coaches win games not concrete and mortar and steel. They just want a new stadium to make more revenue. They should take a page out of the Red Sox's book 90 something year old stadium, small seating capacity, but everyone wants to be there even when they weren't winning championships. Why? They put a good team on the field.

Anonymous said...

Hi. This is Mark Fabiani. I saw your post and wanted to respond. Thanks for the opportunity. You have misunderstood my comment to the Union Tribune. My comment referred to the general supremacy in baseball -- over time -- of teams with the strongest revenue streams. Instead of trying to refute what I said, you instead created a straw man argument -- that teams in old stadiums never win championships -- and then proceeded to knock that straw man down. Of course, that was not at all the argument I was making. My argument is simple: In baseball, as in many other sports, the teams with the strongest revenue streams are consistently better than the teams with the weakest revenue streams. That is not to say that financially weak teams never win -- of course they do. But what I am saying is that in sports -- as in almost any other business you can think of -- it is better to be financially strong than financially weak. In fact, the examples you provide prove my point exactly. The Red Sox are one of the most prolific revenue-producing teams in any sport. So are the Angels, a team that plays in the demographically attractive Orange County area. Both the Cardinals and the White Sox are playing in new, or virtually new, stadiums, and the White Sox play in the third largest media market in the country. So the only outlier in your list of six is the Florida Marlins -- which were forced for financial reasons to break up their team right after it won the World Series in 2003. You also fail to note that the Marlins are now building a new, publicly-financed ballpark -- and that the winners of the last two Super Bowls, the Colts and the Giants, are also about to move into brand new, publicly-subsidized facilities. In short, and with all due respect, you have gone to great lengths to refute an argument that I never made in the first place. And, what's more, the examples you used to make your case in fact prove that my original point: In sports, unless you can generate the revenue to compete with the strongest teams, you are going to be at a long-term disadvantage.

darrell hill said...

Dear Mr. Fabiani,

Thank you for your response. We appreciate your dialogue on this manner.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in. We encourage everyone to call (858.551.2818) or email ( us with thoughts and ideas. Thanks again, Mark Fabiani.