Page 1 of 3

Astrodome open or closed?

PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:15 pm
by The Jury
What's the latest on MLB's "attempt" to be involved in whether the games in Houston are played under the roof or not?

PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:17 pm
by Pogotheostrich
I don't see why MLB should be involved. Let the Astros decide to keep the roof open or closed.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:20 pm
by slomo007
Pogotheostrich wrote:I don't see why MLB should be involved. Let the Astros decide to keep the roof open or closed.

I agree. Apparently Bud is doing his best to allow the White Sox to break their drought.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:38 pm
by davus
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?

PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:45 pm
by chadlincoln
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.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 1:04 pm
by Pogotheostrich
slomo007 wrote:
Pogotheostrich wrote:I don't see why MLB should be involved. Let the Astros decide to keep the roof open or closed.

I agree. Apparently Bud is doing his best to allow the White Sox to break their drought.
I don't think it makes much of a difference. I just don't like having one set of rules throughout the season and then changing them come the WS.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 1:10 pm
by davus
chadlincoln wrote:
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.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 1:13 pm
by The Jury
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?

PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 1:22 pm
by davus
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.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 1:39 pm
by davus
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?