• Is NYC Yankeeland?

    Posted by on August 31st, 2007 · Comments (6)

    From the Times today -

    Normally, the Quinnipiac University polls focus on politics and public policy. Perhaps to mark the end of summer, the university’s latest poll — of 1,461 New York City residents, surveyed from Aug. 21 to 27 — included a smaller sample of 729 baseball fans who were asked about America’s pastime.

    The findings, released this morning: 51 percent of the fans polled said the Yankees were their favorite baseball team, compared with 35 percent for the Mets (and 3 percent for the Boston Red Sox).

    In a Subway Series, city baseball fans would back the Yankees over the Mets, by a margin of 52 percent to 44 percent. Not surprisingly, support for the Mets in such a hypothetical matchup was strongest among Queens residents (55 percent to 40 percent), and the Yankees found their strongest support in the Bronx (66 percent to 31 percent).

    The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 4 percentage points (compared with 3 percentage points in the general survey, which included questions about congestion pricing and other municipal matters).

    I’d like to see the results if they asked 7,290 baseball fans in NYC instead of just 729 baseball fans. I would expect to see the Mets number go up with a larger sample size.

    Comments on Is NYC Yankeeland?

    1. August 31st, 2007 | 12:53 pm

      I’ve always found those polls about Mets and Yankees fans to be truly worthless. If you took the same poll in 1986, the Mets would win easily, and in the late 1990s, the Yankees would have won. There is a hardcore group of Mets fans, and a hardcore group of Yankees fans, and a huge gray area in the middle of casual fans who go with the hot club of the moment. And most of those in the gray area couldn’t tell you which New York team Joba Chamberlain or Lastings Milledge plays for.

    2. August 31st, 2007 | 4:47 pm

      Quinnipiac University represent!

    3. baileywalk
      August 31st, 2007 | 5:57 pm

      I’m sure Steve will mention it soon, but Joba got hit with a two-game suspension. He won’t appeal and will serve the suspension starting tonight. Since he wouldn’t have pitched tonight anyway, it sort of works out as a one-game rip.

    4. JeremyM
      August 31st, 2007 | 6:42 pm

      On an unrelated note, did anyone catch the story regarding Mussina being tailed by John Feinstein this season regarding a book on Mussina and Glavine? The parallels to Cone continue–I think there should be a ban on books on older Yankee pitchers!

      Honestly, I hope Moose starts working with him again, because the book would be fascinating if he is open and honest. Although I have yet to read the Cone book, as seeing him fall apart that badly was too much for me to take.

      Lastly, just started reading “Love Me Hate Me” about Barry Bonds, and so far it is excellent. I never realized what a screw-up his dad was, and the terrible influence he was on his son. Not that it excuses him being a jerk, but it’s interesting nonetheless. The author does a good job presenting all sides of Bonds.

    5. JeremyM
      August 31st, 2007 | 6:57 pm

      That suspension is really ridiculous, Towers on Toronto obviously hit A-Rod intentionally and was fined a pittance. Joba MISSES, there was plenty of reasonable doubt as to his intent, and he gets suspended. It’s not a huge deal as he would be off the next 2 days anyway(I guess, or 1.1 days). But the principal of the matter pisses me off.

      Shouldn’t Bob be looking under windbreakers or something? Maybe checking on the mascots to make sure they have regulation uniforms on? I wonder why he hates the Yankees so much? Oh yeah….

    6. adam
      August 31st, 2007 | 11:31 pm

      the Quinnipiac Poll isn’t one of the most oft cited polling sources by accident. they know how to gather accurate and reproducible data, and if they only need 729 fans to form a representative sample, then 7,290 would have provided more of the same. the entire purpose of these polls is to form predictions without the need for huge sample sizes. your conjecture that increasing the sample size ten times would significantly change the data makes you sound ignorant.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.