What's new
By:

Jazz were 9th in attendance this season.

Beantown

Beantown

Well-Known Member
I couldn't find the other thread but I remember someone posting that the Jazz were in the bottom half of the league in attendance this season. I thought the arena looked fairly empty this season but according to ESPN we are doing pretty good.

https://espn.go.com/nba/attendance
 
wowwww..... pistons average only 67% attendance at home, but 87% on the road. people of detroit know not to torture themselves, other cities haven't caught on to the self-abuse yet.
 
next year if it's given chance to youngsters, i am sure the attendance number will climb up. All we need is excitement, passion and hustle. I am bored of washed up vets.
 
If we were 9th in the worst season I've seen as a Jazz fan, then Randy Rigby is doing one hell of a job.
 
As a Jazz fan, I just want a team I can get behind. It is hard to care when it is just a bunch of 3rd string vets with huge contracts playing starter minutes on 1-2 year deals. I wouldn't care if the FO absorbed a bunch of contracts for future draft picks, etc, but someone has to tell Corbin not to play those guys. I want to see the young guys play, you know, the guys who might actually have a ****in' future with our team and city! Winning is not the most important thing to me. I am more inclined to root for a group of guys that I like, even if they are losing, than I am to root for overpaid athletes who can only bring us mediocrity.

Play the youngsters and attendance will spike.
 
'twas me. I looked at the numbers on basketballreference, and they were 13th (now 15th). Seems like they're adding playoff attendance. Didn't realize.
 
There's a confirmation bias at play behind all statistical analysis, meaning this is a reaffirmation to the FO that playing the vets was the right idea because we clearly wouldn't have supported a young "losing" team.
 
Weezur said:
If we were 9th in the worst season I've seen as a Jazz fan, then Randy Rigby is doing one hell of a job.
Click to expand...
rigby-damn.gif
 
infection said:
There's a confirmation bias at play behind all statistical analysis, meaning this is a reaffirmation to the FO that playing the vets was the right idea because we clearly wouldn't have supported a young "losing" team.
Click to expand...
How so? This was one of the worst attendance years the Jazz have had since moving to the Delta Center.
 
Jazz fans must rank among the lowest of being fairweather fans .. no? I mean, why do we follow staunchly for so long? Why do we follow every whisper, every nudge?
Because we are fanatical... not fairweather.. not at all.

Kudos to erry1 here.
 
The Jazz have been top 10 in attendance for 13 years or so now. Which is why it bugs me when clowns claim that the city is lucky to have the Jazz.
 
illyasova said:
next year if it's given chance to youngsters, i am sure the attendance number will climb up. All we need is excitement, passion and hustle. I am bored of washed up vets.
Click to expand...

I feel the exact same way. I want to see growth and excitement from my team! We need some natural talent to go with our hustle team culture. The draft and trading for draft picks is the route I'd go, if I were the Jazz. 100%! Then, once you feel you're close, you fill in the needs with trades and free agents, but that's later on.
 
If you look at the list, the most we can get to is #3. Also, how are teams over 100% attendance? Should we be calling the Fire Marshall? :) lol
 
Guitaro said:
If you look at the list, the most we can get to is #3. Also, how are teams over 100% attendance? Should we be calling the Fire Marshall? :) lol
Click to expand...

:)

it's because it takes into account the road game attendance, whereas lets say the kings (home max capacity of 17,317, 2nd to last in the league) were to have good attendance at home (lets say ~95%) and great attendance on the road as well (this is hypothetical lol, lets say 95% on the road). That would be 95% of 17,317 -> 16451 and 95% of avg road game capacity (19,172) -> 18213.43

the average of those two (home avg 16451 and away avg 18213.43)=17332 (which is ~101% of their home capacity.

:)
 
jope said:
:)

it's because it takes into account the road game attendance, whereas lets say the kings (home max capacity of 17,317, 2nd to last in the league) were to have good attendance at home (lets say ~95%) and great attendance on the road as well (this is hypothetical lol, lets say 95% on the road). That would be 95% of 17,317 -> 16451 and 95% of avg road game capacity (19,172) -> 18213.43

the average of those two (home avg 16451 and away avg 18213.43)=17332 (which is ~101% of their home capacity.

:)
Click to expand...
so wait what 9th in attendence including road games?

so what is it without road games
 
jope said:
it's because it takes into account the road game attendance
Click to expand...
I don't think that's the case.

ESPN lists the Bulls' home attendance as 896 944, which is an average of 21 876.7 (ESPN has the average as 21 876). Wikipedia lists the basketball seating capacity of the United Center at 20 917. 896 944/41/20 917 = 104.6%, which matches the ESPN number.

ESPN lists the Mavs' home attendance as 821 490, which is an average of 20 036.3 (ESPN has the average as 20 036). Wikipedia lists the basketball seating capacity of American Airlines Center at 19 200. 821 490/41/19 200 = 104.4%, which matches the ESPN number.

They get percentages over 100 because some arenas have additional "standing room" attendance which is not taken into consideration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top