I feel like there are about 100 other factors that go into what this study is purporting to measure, but I throw it out there because it’s interesting.
Two researchers have looked into the impact team mascots and names have on the bottom line. They studied colleges who changed their nicknames and mascots away from Indian names and symbols and on to something else and then looked at the growth in revenue for Indian-named pro teams compared to their non-Indian counterparts.
The results: college programs experienced a small, short term reduction in revenue but over time saw revenues increase. For the pros:
Examining the financial performance over the past dozen years for four teams—the Kansas City Chiefs and the Washington Redskins in the NFL, and the Atlanta Braves and Cleveland Indians in Major League Baseball—revealed the eye-opening result that having a Native American mascot appears to cost professional sports teams millions of dollars in annual revenue—at least $1.6 million per year in the NFL, and $2.6 million per year for MLB’s Braves and Indians.
The linked story talks to the researchers and explains their theories about their findings.
Like I said, I question how exact this sort of science can be and whether a lot of other factors aren’t accounting for them. For example, there is mention of a revenue bump when the Washington Wizards changed their name from the Bullets. Which, yes, did happen. But it also coincided with that franchise getting a ton of good young talent in the mid 90s, winning more games than it had and moving into a new arena. The impact of the name may have caused some people to get new t-shirts or maybe even to patronize the team’s games more often. But winning and new facilities had to be a bigger factor.
One thing here is indisputable, though: the bottom line will drive a business’s decisions more than anything else. And, this study aside, if the Indians, Redskins, Braves and other teams experience a revenue drop off they themselves attribute to their nicknames and mascots, they will change.
David Robertson got the win in both White Sox victories today, a double-header versus the Tigers. In the first game, he got the final out of the eighth inning and pitched a scoreless ninth before the White Sox walked off on an Adam Eaton RBI single.
It was the second game that made things interesting. Robertson took the mound at the start of the ninth inning staked to a 4-1 lead. He’d fork up a leadoff home run to Nick Castellanos. Then, after getting two outs, served up another solo shot to Tyler Collins followed by a game-tying Jarrod Saltalamacchia dinger. Robertson would get out of the inning without any further damage.
In the bottom of the ninth, Melky Cabrera sent the White Sox home winners again, drilling a walk-off RBI single. That gave Robertson the win, his second of the afternoon. As Baseball Tonight notes on Twitter, Robertson is the first player in the last 100 years to give up three home runs in an inning or fewer and still wind up with the victory.
Robertson has had a rough go of it since the All-Star break. He yielded four runs in his first appearance back on July 18. On the season, he’s saved 23 games in 27 appearances with a 4.46 ERA and a 50/21 K/BB ratio in 40 2/3 innings.
Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports reported on Sunday afternoon that the Diamondbacks have told other teams that starter Shelby Miller is available in a trade. Obviously, Miller’s stock has fallen steeply since the club acquired him from the Braves over the winter.
Miller, 25, was recently optioned to Triple-A Reno after his struggles continued following his return from the disabled list. Over 14 starts in the majors, Miller went 2-9 with a 7.14 ERA and a 50/34 K/BB ratio in 69 1/3 innings. In his only start with Reno thus far, Miller yielded three runs on four hits and two walks with 10 strikeouts over 6 2/3 innings.
In their trade with the Braves, the Diamondbacks acquired Miller and minor leaguer Gabe Speier in exchange for 2015 first overall pick Dansby Swanson, pitching prospect Aaron Blair, and outfielder Ender Inciarte. It’s a trade that, if they could undo it, the D-Backs would in a heartbeat.