We ask this question out of sheer curiosity, armed with some statistics but with no real knowledge (of course) on several fronts in terms of what the future might hold: What will attendance be like at Target Field starting in Year 3 (2012) and beyond? The question came to mind as our mind started drifting during last night's game -- the first we had attended at TF in about a month, the latest in a string or wretched home performances during a lost season, and one that gave us ample time for distractions other than the on-field product. Target Field is no doubt a magical place -- near the top for many folks (including us) when making a list of the best ballparks in the majors. The on-field product (and weather) matched the atmosphere last year. This year, the weather (sometimes) and the team (many times) have not delivered. For some, winning or losing doesn't matter all that much. We asked the RandBall Better Half, for example, if her enjoyment of last night's game was tarnished by the Twins' lackluster loss. The RBBH -- not a big sports fan, as many of you know -- said that while it's nice to feel like she is cheering for a winning team and maybe even having an influence on those wins, the outcome is largely irrelevant to her experience. Side note: She was also aghast when told the Twins might trade Jim Thome, her first favorite Twins player since Eddie Guardado. "Why?" she demanded. When told it was because the Twins were out of the playoff race, she replied, "So that means they have to get rid of someone who is a cool guy?" Point taken. She would probably run the Twins much differently than Bill Smith. It would be interesting. But we digress ...

There are plenty of Target Field attendees who like to watch a bit of the game, walk around, eat, drink, chat and then go home. A win is a bonus, but a loss is not a deal-breaker. Then again, there are also plenty of people who need at least a relevant on-field product to feel like the tertiary eating and drinking are worthwhile. Speaking back now on the first group, in addition, does the novelty of eating, drinking, seeing and being seen wear off in years 3, 4 and beyond?

We don't know the answers. We know that San Francisco had a slight dip in attendance during some ragged years in the mid-to-late 2000s, but overall that jewel of a ballpark has typically held strong with its fan base. It is at 99.9 percent capacity this year, one season after the Giants won the World Series. Philly's park, which opened in 2004, has also experienced great attendance -- with the local club almost always in contention. But San Diego, which was at 88 percent capacity during its first year in 2004, is at 60 percent this year. Similar dips can be found in Pittsburgh and Washington, which have opened parks in the past 10 years but haven't fielded winning teams.

That said, our instincts also say we can't just look at other markets when measuring Target Field and guessing at future attendance. This is, after all, an area that was deprived of outdoor Major League baseball for three decades. It's a market that continued to finance sellouts at a beautiful hockey arena long after the initial charm would have seemed to wear off. And it's a team that -- this year aside -- has a recent track record of putting on a competitive, entertaining brand of baseball over a 162-game regular-season schedule.

Again, we don't have answers. Mostly just questions. So we'll offer this: What we're mostly curious about is how much will winning matter when it comes to sustaining a sold out (or very nearly sold out) Target Field, and how soon will it matter? And outside of winning, what do you think is the single most important swaying factor that will influence attendance in years to come?