The seating audit
I should start a separate category for these Section 101-related posts.
Several readers have commented that they’ve been to games where the Section 101 stands were not present. After an extensive audit of my game notes and pictures, along with some work with the PI’s fine Mariner photo galleries I’ve pieced together the following sketch of Section 101’s presence. In general, “there” means I found a photo or evidence the team was selling tickets to that game in that section. “Not there” means I found a photo where they’re clearly not present. “Believed there” means it’s in my game notes, a reader comment or email, but no photo has turned up yet.
This is made much more difficult by way of Ibanez/LF-of-the-day/Winn making almost no defensive plays warranting a picture, ever. And also the difficultly of finding information on past ticket sales… argh.
April
6-8, v Anahiem: believed not there
16-22, v Texas, Oakland: unknown
May
4-9 v Minnesota, New York: believed there
18-23 v Baltimore, Detroit: not there
31- June 13 v Toronto, Chicago, Houston, Montreal: unknown
June
25-July 1 v San Diego, Texas: there
July
15-25 v Cleveland, Boston, Oakland, Anahiem: believed there
August
10-15 v Minnesota, New York: believed there
23-29 v Tampa, Kansas City: there
September
6-19 v Cleveland, Boston, Anahiem, Oakland: there
October
1-3 v Texas: there
The score then:
There: 30
Believed there: 23
Believed absent: 3
Not there: 6
Unknown: 19
Did I do that math right? It is awfully late.
Or, to sum up: 53 games with the stands, 9 games without, 19 I haven’t seen evidence either way. Even throwing all the unknowns into the unknown, that’s a 53:28 and pretty clearly shows that the Mariners didn’t select (say) only the New York games to put the monstrosities in.
On the other hand, if there was indeed a long early-season abscence of those seats does make the lack of attention paid them a little more excusable, because they were home, away, home… and then there are the stands, just like last year, for a homestand with New York… except after that they’re around almost all the time.
I’m also less angry at the team for selling these as “temporary” even though they’re there for every game after the All-Star break. It also makes for a good excuse for the PFD to not get involved (though, again, it’s clearly their duty — if the Mariners wanted to have “take your seat home” night, sponsored by Home Depot, the PFD has a responsibility to protect their investment, just as they do in upholding the public interest, blah blah blah, as I pointed out earlier).
Anyone who wants to chime in and move those unknown games one way or the other (or dispute other classifications) should feel free to comment. URLs to photos particularly appreciated. Or correct my home/away math.
Yes, folks, the U.S.S. Mariner: where we do a ton of bizarre research because there’s no reason a sane fan should have to (or want to) do this themselves. I’m going to sleep.
Comments
7 Responses to “The seating audit”
Y’know, I think the Yankees series was the first series they had them in… Pretty sure…
And then they left them in.
Just checked some of the pictures my wife and I have taken this season:
4/6 (ANA) – Not there
5/4 (MIN) – Not there
5/18 (BAL) – Not there
7/19 (BOS) – There
Definitely there when Oakland was in town during the July 15-25 homestand.
Definitely there on 8/15 vs the Yanks. I’ve got a pic if you want it but don’t have a place to put it up.
I’m pretty sure they were there for the June Expos series; I remember them pointing them out to my father (on his first trip to the park.) I don’t have photos, so I may be misremebering, but I’m confident they were there (plus, the games were sellout or near-sellouts, and I think it’s pretty safe to say there wasn’t a huge walkup, so it would make sense.)
they weren’t there may 31 vs toronto. my only trip to the park, so i remember well. =)