Comments on: Tigers Business is Booming

By: Kyle J

Kyle J — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:50:09 +0000

Two very interesting baseball articles in today’s Wall Street Journal (don’t think you can access them on-line w/o a subscription):

1) Top clutch postseason hits of all time judged on four criteria: how late in the game, increased odds of winning game, increased odds of winning World Series, quality of pitcher. Tony Womack’s game 7 double in the 2001 WS comes out on top–edging Mazeroski, Gibson, and Thompson. Pudge’s single in game 3 of the 2003 NLDS comes in at #10 among hits in the last five years.

2) Article arguing that batting avg. allowed to opponents is a key indicator of postseason success. Tigers rank 2nd among postseason contenders on this stat at .254. Padres are first at .250. Yankees: .262. Twins: .267. A’s: .270. Argument is (in part) that walks aren’t as harmful against lineups stacked with better hitters. Claims to be based on BP research. Will need to review chapter from the book they released earlier this year.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:32:08 +0000

Okay, I read it all the way through, hotel, restaurants, etc, were covered in indirect, and that, ultimately, is just using a guess that worked well in the past. Not everyone is from out-of-town, not every dollar spent at a hotel stays in Detroit, etc.

But as has been stated, it’s always an imprecise art.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:14:31 +0000

Without knowing their track record, it’s hard to say. Their 60% indirect sounds like a high estimate, but then they leave out of direct any estimate how much money people from out of town are spending while in Detroit — not directly at the game. Under the idea that the playoffs would some amount draw out-of-towners to the game, I think they dumped that into indirect.

Say, if I flew down there, stayed with friends, there’d be more spending in the city that wasn’t taken into direct effect on the study. I’d have to eat, maybe spend a few bucks shopping at an actual mall (their use of Detroit was “metro.”) Some folks from out-of-town may stay at a hotel if they don’t have friends or family, that’s extra money that doesn’t fit into any specific category they included.

Those are hard things to estimate directly. So, I think that 60% might be somewhat of a catch-all, or else their study has a bit of a flaw in its estimate.

I’d also be curious how much of a track record they have. They only claim to have a good one.

Also not an economist, but studied four years of it.

By: Kyle J

Kyle J — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:41:36 +0000

Link to economic study here:

http://www.andersoneconomicgro.....oc_ID=1969

The squishy part of studies like these are the “indirect economic multipliers.” They’re assuming a multiplier of 1.6–i.e., that 60% of direct spending is then respent in the Detroit area by those collecting the first wave of revenue. This seems a bit high given that a large portion of the revenue is basically going to Mike Illitch. I really don’t think he’s going to take that money and head over to the Greektown Casino to blow it.

Certainly the Tigers’ success is great for the city. Pinning down the impact is pretty imprecise science, though.

(I’m not an economist, but I play one on TV.)

By: Jeff M

Jeff M — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 12:58:59 +0000

Those numbers are very reasonable. The only problem is that about 80% of it will be spent inside the stadium. The average ticket prices are about $50/$90/$190. Figure $20 per fan in concessions and now the only thing being spent in the surrounding area is parking and a couple beers.

There’s no doubt it’s good for the city, but mostly it’s just good for Ilitch.