davus wrote:Well I'm of the opinion that if a game can be played in open air, it should. Baseball is an outdoor sport.
That being said...who really give a crap, ultimately?
The Astros give a crap.
But their winning percentage when the roof is open is only .577 (15-11) -- versus .684 (39-18) when it's closed (counting the postseason). (There were two other games this year in which the roof was opened during the late innings.)
The stats don't lie. There is a difference. I see this issue as being groundkeeping issues and not a Selig issue. It's no different than the grounds crews of teams letting the grass grow a little bit longer for their home team ground ball pitcher. I say let the Astros decide. Based off stats, I'd go with roof closed.
7/26 - Cafe goes down:
General Error SQL ERROR [ mysql4 ] Table './cafe_forums/baseball_sessions' is marked as crashed and should be repaired [145] An sql error occurred while fetching this page. Please contact an administrator if this problem persists.
davus wrote:Well I'm of the opinion that if a game can be played in open air, it should. Baseball is an outdoor sport.
That being said...who really give a crap, ultimately?
The Astros give a crap.
But their winning percentage when the roof is open is only .577 (15-11) -- versus .684 (39-18) when it's closed (counting the postseason). (There were two other games this year in which the roof was opened during the late innings.)
The stats don't lie. There is a difference. I see this issue as being groundkeeping issues and not a Selig issue. It's no different than the grounds crews of teams letting the grass grow a little bit longer for their home team ground ball pitcher. I say let the Astros decide. Based off stats, I'd go with roof closed.
I meant who gives a crap if they do it. Let them do what they want.
It's the Astros homefield for the next 3 games, so they should have homefield advantage. As commentators on the FAN 590 radio station were saying, the Astros have an advantage at home with the dome closed because it's so loud, that if you're not used to playing there then it can be difficult. It should be up to the Astros anyways, not up to MLB. They didn't bring in heaters to warm up Cell Field in Chicago to change the conditions, why do they feel the need/right to take away the Astros' homefield advantage?
[quote:4fef447375="Geek"]The odds of the AL MVP coming from the American League are looking pretty good.[/quote]
The Jury wrote:It's the Astros homefield for the next 3 games, so they should have homefield advantage. As commentators on the FAN 590 radio station were saying, the Astros have an advantage at home with the dome closed because it's so loud, that if you're not used to playing there then it can be difficult. It should be up to the Astros anyways, not up to MLB. They didn't bring in heaters to warm up Cell Field in Chicago to change the conditions, why do they feel the need/right to take away the Astros' homefield advantage?
Apples and oranges comparing a natural geographical advantage to a manufactured advantage. The Sox have to deal with the bad weather too, btw.
I think manufactured advantages are BS. But again, it's not really a big deal. Let em do it if they want.
Actually. I just read something that completely changed my mind.
When Arizona was in the series MLB ordered the roof open for all the games played there. There is your precedent and it should be followed here as well. End of story.
By the way, if the Sox had an advantage because they are used to playing in temps they are used to...wouldn't the Stros have an advantage when playing in the temps THEY are used to as well?
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by The Jury » Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:15 pm 
